Ellen Lippman

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021002828 (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. 16/281,027 02/20/2019 Ellen Lippman 011709.001US1/RLP 1028 39564 7590 01/14/2022 FisherBroyles, LLP - MAIN CN 945 East Paces Ferry Rd. NE Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30326 EXAMINER FRUNZI, VICTORIA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 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): docketing@fisherbroyles.com patent@fisherbroyles.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ELLEN LIPPMAN ____________ Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Ellen Lippman (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non-final rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11, 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 of developing a referral network and rewarding those providing referrals. Spec. 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. A system comprising: a computer having memory and one or more processors, said one or more processors running executable instructions to: (i) register a plurality of service providers in a database by receiving personal information input by service providers regarding each of said service providers and confidential data related to each of said service providers to permit each of said service providers to be registered to access a referral network maintained by said system; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed September 21, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 1, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October 27, 2020), and Non-Final Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed April 8, 2020). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ellen Lippman (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 3 (ii) categorize each of said plurality of registered service providers by geographic location such that registered service providers licensed in a same defined geographic location are categorized together; (iii) accept a referral request for a particular service from one of said plurality of registered service providers using a user interface associated with said system, said referral request including a geographic location where said particular service is to be provided; (iv) automatically identify a registered service provider to receive said referral request, said identified registered service provider [being] licensed in said geographic location where said particular service is to be provided, said registered service provider [being] identified to receive said referral request selected from a ranking of registered service providers based on one or more of: a number of referral requests made and a value of said number of referral requests made by said referring service providers; (v) transmit a digital referral request message to an electronic device associated with said identified registered service provider along with an active acceptance icon of said digital referral request message, said active acceptance icon automatically deactivated after a pre-established period of time; (vi) cancel said digital referral request message after passage of said pre-established period of time without said active acceptance icon being utilized and transmit said digital referral request message to a next automatically identified registered service provider licensed in said geographic location where said particular service is to be provided and [sic] from said ranking of registered service providers and Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 4 continue to do so until one of said identified registered service providers from said ranking of registered service providers accepts said digital referral request message via said active acceptance icon within said pre-established period of time; (vii) store in said memory at least a number of accepted referral requests made and a value of said number of referral requests made by each of said referring service providers and ranking each of said referring service providers based thereon; and (viii) after acceptance of said referral request, reward said referring service provider by increasing said ranking of said referring service provider thereby increasing the opportunity that said referring service provider will be selected to receive a future referral request message. Appeal Br. 14-15 (Claims App.). The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Leventhal US 2004/0220848 A1 Nov. 4, 2004 Kolber US 2013/0097093 A1 Apr. 18, 2013 Friscia US 2016/0232242 A1 Aug. 11, 2016 Fruhman US 2017/0372410 A1 Dec. 28, 2017 Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 5 Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, and Kolber. Claims 7 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, Kolber, and Leventhal. ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of written description matter turn primarily on whether the Specification supports the limitation “the deactivation of the icon once the time has expired.” The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art ranks providers as claimed. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (“FF”) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art Fruhman 01.Fruhman is directed to a hybrid dispatch management system for scheduled and real-time events. Fruhman para. 5. 02. Fruhman describes receiving a rental request and storing the rental request as an event in a list of events in a database, Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 6 determining a current location of a client computing device for each available service provider user from a list of service providers, determining a subset of the list of events that are to occur during a future period of time, determining a location associated with each event in the subset of the list of events, selecting a particular available service provider from the list of service providers for a particular event in the subset of the list of events, the particular available service provider selected based on a ranking of the particular available service provider and the particular available service provider having a lowest distance between the current location of the particular available service provider and the location associated with the particular event in the subset of the list of events, and transmitting a notification to the client computing device associated with the particular available service provider and receiving a confirmation from the client computing device that indicates whether the particular available service provider accepts or declines the particular event in the subset of the list of events. Fruhman para. 5. Friscia 03.Friscia is directed to providing reciprocity for referral services. Friscia para. 1. 04. Friscia describes how the referral service may increase a referral- worthy score of the professional for providing a lead to the referral service after the professional selects a service provider for the requester. As the professional’s referral-worthy score increases, the chances of the professional’s profile being displayed on the Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 7 featured candidate list in the future also increases. Friscia para. 26. 05. Friscia describes an example in which one who is not registered with the referral service, may receive a request after accessing the referral service through the website and entering the search criteria. The referral service may then query its databases and provide a list of candidates that match search criteria of location and type of practice. The list of candidates may include featured service provider candidates and general service provider candidates. The party may select a provider from the list of candidates. After completion of the work, the referral service may request feedback from the all parties. The feedback may be used to modify the referral-worthy score of the provider or the requestor. Additionally, the corporate attorney and criminal defense attorney may be prompted for feedback about their experience with the referral service. Friscia paras. 69-70. Kolber 06.Kolber is directed to introducing employment opportunities to individuals, for finding suitable candidates for employers and for matching individuals with companies. Kolber para. 5. 07. Kolber describes rejecting a Job Offer in by either: (a) explicitly rejecting the offer by clicking on the appropriate button provided; or (b) by not responding at all and allowing the time limit set in the Job Offer to expire. Kolber para. 37. Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 8 ANALYSIS Claims 1-5 and 7-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 13 Claim 1, as a system claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Although claim 1 is nominally a system claim, it recites “a computer having memory and one or more processors, said one or more processors running executable instructions to” followed by process steps. Claim 1 and its dependent claims are thus substantively process claims wrapped in a computer context. There are no structural limitations apart from the generic and conventional computer, which inherently incorporates the recited memory and processors by definition. Accordingly, we refer to claim 1 as a method claim for the remainder of the analysis. 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 3 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 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 9 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 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 personal and confidential data, categorizing provider data, accepting request data, identifying provider data, transmitting, cancelling and re-transmitting, and storing request data, and increasing ranking data. Categorizing and identifying are rudimentary forms of Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 10 analyzing data. Accepting data is receiving data. Cancelling data is modifying data. Increasing ranking is modifying data. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, transmitting, modifying, and storing 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 in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 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 service providers. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to rank service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance 4 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 Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 5 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). 6 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 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 11 experience. The advice to rank service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience involves rewarding a referring service provider, which is an economic act, and transmitting a digital referral request message, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “reward said referring service provider,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing providers. Similarly, claim 1 recites “transmit a digital referral request message,” which is also characteristic of message commerce. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to a reward based on the acceptance of a referral. Non-Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the steps in claim 1 result in managing commercial service providers by ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations i and iii recite receiving data. Limitations ii and iv-viii recite generic and conventional analyzing, transmitting, modifying, and storing of request data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience. To advocate ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to developing a referral network and rewarding those providing referrals. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites managing Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 12 commercial service providers. 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 service providers is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing commercial service providers by ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience is one idea for matching providers to work. 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. Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, transmitting, modifying, and storing data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, transmission, modification, and storage and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 13 not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, transmitting, modifying, and storing data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites managing commercial service providers by ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience, 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 some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7 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). 7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 14 Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps i and iii are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step v recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps ii, iv, and vi-viii recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of managing commercial service providers by ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience 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. 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 10+ pages of Specification do not bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 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 service providers by ranking service providers based 8 The Specification describes a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices. Spec. para. 22. Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 15 on referral request history and referral acceptance experience under different scenarios. They do 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 service providers by ranking service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial service providers by advising one to rank service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience, 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 Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 16 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 “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). “[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, analyzing, transmitting, modifying, and storing data Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 17 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 Process. 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 Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. 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-analysis- transmission-modification-storage is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (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 Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 18 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.’” 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 service providers by advising one Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 19 to rank service providers based on referral request history and referral acceptance experience, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Non-Final Action, pages 3-5 and Answer, pages 4-5 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “limitations first define a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations, including timing the referral, limiting the referral to geographical parameters and basing the referrals on a dynamic ranking system, each limitation serves to define the practical application of the alleged abstract idea.” Reply Br. 3. Unfortunately, none of the limitations recite technological implementation details. Simply reciting a generic function and saying perform it does not confer eligibility. At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete embodiment of that idea. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims contain an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered combination of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit’s findings in BASCOM (BASCOM Global Internet Svcs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Reply Br. 3. Initially, we remind Appellant that Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 20 BASCOM did not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the Appellees did not provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor. The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in “installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure The Examiner determines that “the disclosure does not explicitly disclose the deactivation of the icon once the time has expired.” Non-Final Act. 3. We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Specification describes this where it says “it is determined if the selected agent has accepted the referral within an allotted acceptance time period (e.g., 30 minutes). If not, [the system] sends a cancelation push notice to the first- ranking agent.” Spec. para. 34. See Reply Br. 2. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, and Kolber We adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Non-Final Action, pages 5-13 and Answer, pages 6-7 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 21 We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that as to Fruhman paragraph 26, what increases is the chance of the professional’s profile being displayed. While it is true that being prominently displayed would likely increase that the professional being selected, it is not a ranking system that ensures selection. However, the instant application claims “said registered service provider identified to receive said referral request selected from a ranking of registered service providers based on one or more of: a number of referral requests made and a value of said number of referral requests made by said referring service providers.” Thus, the ranking used in the current system directly and knowingly increases the likelihood that the registered service provider will be selected by the system (rather than increasing the likelihood that a customer will make the selection as detailed in Fruhman). Reply Br. 3-4. The first problem with this argument is that this paragraph is from Friscia rather than Fruhman, so the argument does not properly align with the Examiner’s rejection. The larger problem is that the argument goes to an aspirational hope as to how the claim will affect later actions outside the claim scope. That the prior art describes the recited ranking is undisputed. The claims do not recite or narrow the manner or degree of how the selection is based on the recited factors after the ranking. The claims also do not recite or narrow how the system would “automatically identify a registered service provider to receive said referral request.” Claim 1, limitation iv. Appellant is postulating a manner that is more narrow than the claim allows for. Thus Appellant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 22 Claims 7 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, Kolber, and Leventhal This is argued on the basis of claim 1. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure is improper. The rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, and Kolber is proper. The rejection of claims 7 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Fruhman, Friscia, Kolber, and Leventhal is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11 is affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-11 101 Eligibility 1-5, 7-11 1-5, 7-11 112 Written Description 1-5, 7-11 1-5, 8-10 103 Fruhman, Friscia, Kolber 1-5, 8-10 7, 11 103 Fruhman, Friscia, Kolber, Leventhal 7, 11 Overall Outcome 1-5, 7-11 Appeal 2021-002828 Application 16/281,027 23 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) (2019). AFFIRMED