Ex Parte Ng Tari et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 201815004725 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/004,725 01/22/2016 Luis Babaji Ng Tari 115522 7590 09/19/2018 GE Global Research - SW COE 2623 Camino Road Suite 500 San Ramon, CA 94583-9130 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 260515-2 (G31.123C) 1023 EXAMINER OPSASNICK, MICHAEL N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2658 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2018 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): gpo.mail@ge.com lori.e.rooney@ge.com Loretta.Sandoval@ge.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LUIS BABAJI NG TARI and ABRA MOITRA Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 1 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm and designate this as a new ground of rejection under 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b). 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is General Electric Company. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' described and claimed invention relates generally to language processing systems and techniques for extracting ontological information from a body of text. See Spec. ,r 1. 2 Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows: 1. A system for extracting ontological information from a body of text, said system comprising: a processor and executable instructions accessible on a non-transitory computer-readable medium that, when executed, cause the system to perform operations comprising: identify a phrase of a first type; identify a subset of parsed sentences from a set of parsed sentences based at least partially on the occurrence of the first phrase of the first type within at least one parsed sentence of the set of parsed sentences; identify a subset of phrases of a second type from the subset of parsed sentences based at least partially on grammatical relationship of each phrase of the second type of the subset of parsed sentences to the first phrase of the first type; classify a first phrase of the second type in the subset of phrases of the second type as an entity, thereby defining a first entity; classify a second phrase of the second type in the subset of phrases of the second type as a property, thereby defining a first property; and identify a conceptual relationship between the first entity and the first property based at least partially on grammatical 2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed December 15, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 10, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed November 28, 2017 ("Ans.); and the original Specification filed January 22, 2016 ("Spec."). 2 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 relationship of the first entity and the first property within a first sentence; and store the conceptual relationship as part of an ontological database for later use by the system. App. Br. 25 (Claims App.). Rejection on Appeal Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. ANALYSIS Rejection of Claims 1-20 under§ 101 Applicable Law Under 35 U.S.C. § 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. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted§ 101 to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citation omitted). The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts." Id. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of 3 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355- 57. The "directed to" inquiry asks not whether "the claims involve a patent- ineligible concept," but instead whether, "considered in light of the [S]pecification,[] 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.'" Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims "focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology" or are "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claim is not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, it is considered patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In other words, the second step is to "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."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea "'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological 4 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 environment' or adding 'insignificant post solution activity."' Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted). Appellants' Arguments2 Appellants contend independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea (i.e., "calculating and assigning values to sentences"), and the Examiner's articulation is not representative of claim 1. See App. Br. 12- 14. Appellants also contend claim 1 is directed to an improvement to computer technology and solves a technical problem in a technical way, and, thus, under McRO, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. See App. Br. 14--17. Appellants further contend that, even if the Board finds claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, claim 1 is not patent-ineligible under Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because claim 1 is directed to substantially more than an abstract idea. See App. Br. 17-20. Appellants further contend the Examiner's rejection has not established a prima facie case of ineligibility because: (1) the Examiner's articulation of the alleged abstract idea is not representative of claim 1; (2) the Examiner has not shown claim 1 is similar to claims previously found abstract by a court; and (3) the Examiner has not performed a sufficient Alice step two analysis. See App. Br. 20-22. 3 Regarding the majority of Appellants' arguments, Appellants treat independent claim 1 as a representative claim. See App. Br. 12-22. In addressing these arguments, we likewise consider claim 1 to be representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal and, therefore, we decide the rejection of claims 1-20 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Where Appellants also proffer separate arguments regarding either independent claims 9 and 14, or any of the dependent claims, we additionally address the respective claims accordingly. See App. Br. 14, and 22-24. 5 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 Appellants also contend the Examiner has failed to address the details of the dependent claims (which further define details of rules to extract meaning from text, further define particular data structures used, or both), and thus, the Examiner has failed to show the dependent claims are patent-ineligible. See App. Br. 22-24. Step One of Alice The Examiner finds the claims are directed to a mathematical calculation, which the Examiner indicates does not fall into one of the enumerated four categories of patent-eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds the claims are directed to calculating and assigning values to sentences, which the Examiner determines is an abstract idea. See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. The Examiner further finds as follows: As to the Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, claims 1-20 are directed to identifying and classifying stored phrases, which is a mathematical calculation/relationship (see application, the identifying and classifying steps rely upon probability calculations, as shown in para 0039-0043, wherein the section of phrases are labeled with codes, and a mathematical comparison is performed to determine the identity (noun/verb, etc.) and classification; further see figure 3 showing node trees that are used as the mathematical comparison constructs; and fig 4, "normalization module"). Such mathematical relationships have been deemed to be an abstract idea (see Fed. Reg. Guidelines, Vol. 79, No. 241, December 16th, 2014, [p. 74622], second column, bottom). Examples of patent eligible claims, under the Step 2A test, can be found in: Enfish v Microsoft Corp, (wherein the claims pointed to a specific self -referential table effecting a particular way of altering the physical storage memory - see Enfish, [pp. 12-14], with further guidance to software type steps effecting 6 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 the same result, does not 'doom the claims' -- see Enfzsh, [p. 16]; however, Enfish, reinforces the notion of claims that recite mathematical formulas on a general purpose computer, are not patent eligible -- see Enfish, [p. 17]) and McRO v Bandai et al, wherein a "set of rules" previously performed by human animators (non-calculation in nature) were now automated via a computer (McRO, [pp. 24--25], and in contradistinction, Flook, Bilski, and Alice performing computer automated processes in the same way as previous methods). The current claimed steps of identifying and [classifying], are mathematical calculations (abstract idea) without similar steps found in Enfish or McRO, and hence claims 1-20 are considered to be an abstract idea, under the Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. Ans. 4 ( emphasis added). Considering the focus of claim 1 as a whole, in view of Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. Consistent with the Examiner's reasoning, we find claim 1 is directed to a system for extracting ontological information from a body of text, the system comprising a processor and executable instructions accessible on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and the system performing operations comprising: (1) identifying a phrase of a first type; (2) identifying a subset of parsed sentences from a set of parsed sentences based on the occurrence of the identified phrase of the first type within the set of parsed sentences; (3) identifying a subset of phrases of a second type from the subset of parsed sentences based on a grammatical relationship of each phrase of the second type of the subset of parsed sentences to the identified phrase of the first type; ( 4) classifying a first phrase of the second type in the subset of phrases of the second type as an entity (i.e., a first entity); (5) classifying a second phrase of the second type in the subset of phrases of the second type as a property (i.e., a first property); (6) 7 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 identifying a conceptual relationship between the first entity and the first property based on a grammatical relationship of the first entity and the first property within a first sentence; and (7) storing the conceptual relationship as part of an ontological database. App. Br. 25 (Claims App.). Independent claims 9 and 14 are respectively directed to a non-transitory computer- readable medium and method that recite similar functionality. See App. Br. 27, 29 (Claims App.). The various recited functions of claim 1 amount to identifying portions of a body of text, classifying the identified portions, and storing the various classifications. We note that the recited functions could be performed by a human with pen and paper. In that regard, our reviewing court has held that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Electric Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ( claims focus on the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis); see also SmartGene Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims were directed to patent-ineligible subject matter because they do no more than call on a "computing device," with basic functionality for comparing stored and input data and rules). "[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter." Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Regarding Appellants' argument that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, this argument is not persuasive. As previously described, the 8 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 various functions recited in claim 1 amount to identifying portions of a body of text, classifying the identified portions, and storing the various classifications. The recited functions could be performed by a human with pen and paper, and, thus, constitute a mental process that courts have previously held to be directed to an abstract idea. See Electric, 830 F.3d at 1353-54. Further, even Appellants' characterization of claim 1 as a method of extracting ontological information from a body of text (see App. Br. 14), can also be characterized as a process that can be performed by a human with pen and paper. Thus, we do not find error with the Examiner's characterization of claim 1 as an abstract idea. Further, we are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that independent claims 9 and 14 are not directed to abstract ideas because the claims respectively recite additional limitations. Claim 9 is similar to claim 1 and additionally recites outputting a conceptual relationship to a display device for viewing by a user as a relation between a first entity and a first property. However, displaying information, without more, does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an ordinary mental process, which has been previously held to be directed to an abstract idea. See Electric, 830 F.3d at 1355. Claim 14 is similar to claim 1 and additionally recites outputting a conceptual relationship as an identified relation between a first entity and a first property to an ontological database and displaying the conceptual relationship to a display device for viewing by a user. However, as previously described, storing and displaying information, without more, does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an ordinary mental process. 9 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 Regarding Appellants' argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in McRO because claim 1 is directed to an improvement to computer technology and solves a technical problem in a technical way, this argument is also not persuasive. In McRO, the court held the claims were patent- eligible because the claims recited specific computer-implemented rules that allowed a computer to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animators. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. Although Appellants argue claim 1 is directed to improving language processing systems and extracting ontological information from text (see App. Br. 16), claim 1 fails to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the claim fails to recite the improvement to the claimed system that Appellants argue the claim is directed to. Notwithstanding the fact we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, we find error in the Examiner's reasoning in two respects: (1) the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to a mathematical algorithm; and (2) the Examiner's determination that the claims do not fall into one of the enumerated four categories of patent-eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. § 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 2. Regarding (1 ), as previously discussed, since the recited functions (i.e., identifying portions of a body of text, classifying the identified portions, and storing the various classifications) could be performed by a human with pen and paper, we conclude the claims are directed to an idea of itself, such as a mental 10 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 process, rather than a mathematical calculation. Regarding (2), the question of whether a claim is for a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter is a separate question than the question of whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea. See e.g., Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") § 2106 - Patent Subject Matter Eligibility ("First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories .... Second, the claimed invention also ... must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception."). Although the Examiner has shown that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner has not shown that the claims do not fall into one of the enumerated four categories of patent-eligible subject matter. Because we agree with the Examiner's ultimate determination that the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter, we conclude that the errors in the Examiner's reasoning do not warrant reversal of the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, because our analysis above differs from the Examiner's analysis, we designate our affirmance as a new ground of rejection. Step Two of Alice Regarding step two of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than a processor, memory, and non- transitory computer readable storage media, which are mere recitations of generic computer structure that perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to 11 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 the pertinent industry. See Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 2-3. The Examiner further finds as follows: As to the Step 2B of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, the additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se: the storing step of "store the conceptual relationship as part of an ontological database for later use by the system"; and "displaying the conceptual relationship to a display device for viewing by a user" amount(s) to no more than a conventional step of storing using a conventional storage element (database), which is in a format of A) conventional components; B) apply it; C) mere data gathering steps/insignificant extrasolutional activity; D) intended use; and, have been determined to be not significantly more (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 79, No. 241, Dec. 16, 2014, p. 74624, 3rd column); and hence, these extra elements do not qualify as significantly more (see Fed. Reg. Vol. 79, No. 241, Dec. 16, 2014, p. 74624, 2nd column, for the significantly more test). Further, looking at Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, the claim scope was determined to organize observed data and distribute the data to conventional displays, which was considered to be not-significantly more. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As examples of claims, as a whole, that DO pass the "significantly more" test (among others), examiner guides applicant's attention to Bascom Global Internet Services v AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Diehr (see Example 25). Furthermore, the dependent claims contain further mathematical equations/steps, as well as steps that are considered conventional under step 2b (the storing step and displaying steps), and do not resolve the patent eligibility of the independent claims. Ans. 4--5 ( emphasis added). 12 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 We agree with the Examiner that the claimed processor, memory, database, and non-transitory computer-readable medium do not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea because they are "no more than generic computer components executing generic computer functions." See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ("[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent in-eligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words 'apply it' is not enough for patent eligibility.") (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). We further agree with the Examiner that the claimed storing of a conceptual relationship and outputting of the conceptual relationship to a display device are merely insignificant extra-solution activity which fails to represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Bilski, 561 U.S.at 610-11. Appellants' argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims in Bascom, is also not persuasive. The court in Bascom noted that an inventive concept can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350. However, the claims here are distinguishable from those in Bascom. In Bascom, the system claims were directed to a "content filtering system for filtering content retrieved from an Internet computer network," which the court held were directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 1348--49. The court further held the claims included an inventive concept in the ordered combination of system components, including a local client computer and a remote ISP server connected to the client computer and Internet computer network providing for "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user." Id. at 1350. Appellants have failed to establish that claim 1 includes a 13 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 similar or analogous arrangement or "ordered combination" of components, and, instead, make only the conclusory statement that the recited set of rules used to extract meaning from text are "non-traditional" and "improve the functioning of the computer." App. Br. 20. Prima Facie Case We also are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility. Regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner's articulation of the alleged abstract idea is not representative of claim 1, and that the Examiner has not performed a sufficient Alice step two analysis because the Examiner has not addressed Bascom, these arguments have been previously addressed, and thus, are not persuasive. Further, regarding Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not shown claim 1 is similar to claims previously found abstract by a court, this argument is also not persuasive, as the Examiner cited previous court cases holding claims to be nothing significantly more than abstract ideas, including Alice, Bilski, and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). Even assuming arguendo that these citations to previous court cases are not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility, our analysis has further shown that claim 1 is similar to claims previously held by courts to be patent-ineligible as nothing significantly more than abstract ideas in Electric, SmartGene, and Bancorp. Dependent Claim 2 We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claim 2 is separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the claimed parse tree database does not add "significantly more" to the abstract idea because it is no more than a generic computer component executing generic 14 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 computer functions. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358. Further, the claimed storing of a set of parsed sentences in the parse tree database is merely insignificant extra-solution activity which fails to represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Bilski, 561 U.S.at 610-11. Dependent claims 3, 10, and 15 We further are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 3, 10, and 15 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellant's argument that claims 3, 10, and 15 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. Dependent Claims 4 and 16 We additionally are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 4 and 16 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument that claims 4 and 16 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. Dependent Claims 5 and 6 We also are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 5 and 6 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument that claims 4 and 16 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. 15 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 Dependent Claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17-20 We further are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17-20 are separately patent-eligible. Contrary to Appellants' argument that claims 7, 8, 11-13, and 17-20 recite a set of rules that are similar to the rules recited in the claims held to be patent-eligible in McRO, the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how the claimed system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Given that our analysis above differs from the Examiner's analysis, however, we designate this a new ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) provides "[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. ... 16 Appeal2018-002860 Application 15/004, 725 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(b) 17 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation