Ex Parte Rielly et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 22, 2019

13371813 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/371,813 02/13/2012 131244 7590 02/22/2019 Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP/JPMorgan Chase Intellectual Property Department 2200 Pennsylvania A venue, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR William Rielly 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. 72167.000776 1505 EXAMINER LIU,IJUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3697 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2019 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM RIELLY, LESLIE D. EHRLICH, RA VI ACHARY A, and DMITRY GOLDMAN Appeal2017---006598 Application 13/371,813 Technology Center 3600 Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 William Rielly, Leslie D. Ehrlich, Ravi Acharya, and Dmitry Goldman (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 of a final rejection of claims 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed August 9, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed February 28, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 13, 2017), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 11, 2016). Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 1-14, 16, and 17, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). The Appellants invented a way that transmits financial information to a user based on a request received from the user via a personal device. Specification para. 18. 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 method, comprising; [ 1] detecting a login request, by a processor, from a customer, at a first financial transaction device that is operated by a first financial institution and wherein the first financial transaction device comprises a user interface and memory; [2] identifying, by the processor, a status of the customer that comprises identifying that the customer is associated with the first financial institution and the customer conducted a previous transaction with a second financial transaction device operated by a second financial institution, wherein the second financial institution is different than the first financial institution; [3] requesting a profile of the customer, the profile being based upon the customer's association with the first financial institution; 2 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 [ 4] analyzing, by the processor, the profile of the customer; [5] receiving a transaction request at the first financial transaction device from the customer; [6] creating a message, by the processor, for the customer, comprising information regarding and one or more fees associated with using the second financial transaction device and avoiding the one or more fees associated with conducting one or more additional transactions with the second financial transaction device, wherein the message is based on the analysis of the profile and the association of the customer with the first financial institution and wherein the message further comprises information regarding a location of one or more additional financial transaction devices associated with the first financial institution that are located within a predetermined proximity of the second financial transaction device; [7] transmitting, by the processor, the message to a portable electronic device associated with the customer. Claims 1-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. 3 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of what a computer is to provide without implementation details. ANALYSIS STEP 1i Claim 1, as a method claim, recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, ... determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, "[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?" To answer that question, ... consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." 2 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019). 4 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) ( citations omitted) ( citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 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 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. 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 Method claim 1 recites detecting login data, identifying customer status data, requesting and analyzing customer profile data, receiving transaction request data, and creating and transmitting a message when the customer data meets recited criteria. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only functional results to be achieved 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. The next issue is whether it recites the judicial exception of an abstract idea. To answer this, we next determine whether it recites one of the concepts the Courts have held to be 5 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 lacking practical application, viz. mathematical concepts 3, certain methods of organizing human interactions4, including fundamental economic practices and business activities, or mental processes. 5 The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to collecting and comparing known information (i.e. the steps identifying data, requesting data, analyzing data and receiving data) for a method, which is similar to that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as comparing data to determine a risk level (Perkin-Elmer), obtaining and comparing intangible data ( Cybersource) and comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options. Final Act. 3. The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is directed to, but the steps in claim 1 result in creating and transmitting a message, perceptible only to the human mind, and absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. 3 See e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 4 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 Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 2018 WL 6816331 (Fed. Cir. 2018) 5 See e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) 6 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 As to the specific limitations, limitations 1-5 and 7 recite insignificant receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting of customer and transaction data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. Limitation 6 is the only step associated with performing what the claim produces and recites "creating a message," which is simply a generic communication. To advocate "creating a message" is conceptual advice for results to be obtained, and not technological operations. Although the Specification at paragraph 2 recites that the invention relates to an automated banking machine that is dynamically updated from a host system, the claims in this application are directed to the more narrow portion of the Specification which describes how "the host may be available to a personal device having a transmitter and a receiver. The host transmits financial information to the user based on a request received from the user via the personal device." Specification paragraph 18. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to informing a customer with a message, i.e. communicating with a customer. This is consistent with the Examiner's determination. The concept of communicating with a customer is a fundamental business practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of communicating with a customer is also a building block of ingenuity in sales and marketing. Thus, communicating with a customer is an example of a conceptual idea subject to the Supreme Court's "concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations omitted). Claim 1 recites the idea of performing various conceptual steps 7 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 generically resulting in the communicating with a customer. As we determined earlier, none of these steps recite specific technological implementation details, but instead get to this result by advising one to determine whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate ATM sites and informing him if so. Thus, claim 1 is directed to communicating with a customer, which is a fundamental business practice. This in tum is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human interactions because communicating with a customer is a commercial interaction. The concept of communicating with a customer as advised to be done by determining whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate A TM sites and informing him if so is an interaction designed to get a customer to further interact with the business. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of this interaction. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (2016) (delivering customer selected content); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (2015) (tailoring content based on customer location). Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting 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 TL! 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. 8 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, modification, and transmission 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 not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. From this we conclude that at least to this degree, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of communicating with a customer by advising one to determine whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate ATM sites and informing him if so. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether the claims not only recite, but are more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether they are instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application. 6 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." 6 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). 9 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 []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 Â§ 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. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis because. the 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 "implement[t]" an abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds ourÂ§ 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of "additional feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract idea] itself." Id. at 223-24. "[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." Id. at 225. They do not. 10 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely functional, devoid of implementation details. Steps 1-5 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 6 recites generic computer processing expressed in functional terms to be performed by any and all possible means and so present no more than abstract 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, Appellants' method claims simply recite the concept of communicating with a customer as performed by a generic computer. To be sure, the claims recite doing so by advising one to determine whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate ATM sites and informing him if so. But this is no more than abstract conceptual advice on the parameters for communicating with a customer, and the generic computer processes necessary to apply those parameters, without reciting any particular implementation. The method claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification spells out 11 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 different generic equipment 7 and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of data transmission under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of communicating with a customer by advising one to determine whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate ATM sites, and informing him if so 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 reflect 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 7 The Specification describes an ATM, kiosk, point of sale device at a merchant, a self check-out device at a merchant, ticket issuing device at subway or airport, gas pump or other similar kiosk type devices that provides services via a card similar to an ATM. Spec. para. 35. 12 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 1 is directed to advising one to determine whether a customer is one who might benefit from knowing about alternate A TM sites and informing him if so to achieve the functional result of communicating with a customer as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 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, modifying, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 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 are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce 13 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellants' method claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis- modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that the claims do not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. 14 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 REMAINING CLAIMS 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. There are no structural claims. 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 communicating with a customer, without significantly more. APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action 2---6 and Answer 2-9 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that The Office maintains that the cited cases of PerkinElmer8, Cybersource9, and Smartgene10 is proper as each allegedly 8 PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. Appx. 65 (Fed. Cir. 2012). 15 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 "provides a proper analogy to the claims at issue." Answer, pp. 2-3. However, the Office has ignored the scope of the present claims by focusing only on certain elements of the claims. Further, the Office has ignored the claims of the cited cases because none of the three cited cases provides a viable analogy to the present claims as described by Appellant in its Appeal Brief. Reply Br. 1-2. As to whether the Examiner ignored the claim scope, we determine the scope of what the claims are directed to supra based on intrinsic evidence. Although the claims are in the context of a financial transaction device transaction, the claims do not rely on the structure of the ATM, but only on data perceptible only to the human mind concerning a user and sending a message, again perceptible only to the human mind, to the user. Limitations discemable only in the human mind have no patentable weight. See In re Bernhart, 417 F.2d 1395, 1399 (CCPA 1969). PerkinElmer, although a medical claim, similarly analyzed data to produce a result for communication. At least the result was not so abstract there, as it conveyed the result of a scientific principle based on natural properties. The location of some ATM is far more abstract, being some arbitrary address text based on whoever street names are created. Cybersource, is closer to the instant claims in being directed to conveying information regarding financial products, in this case credit cards. 9 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011) 10 SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 16 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 As with PerkinElmer, the claims analyzed data to produce a result for communication. The nature of the data regarded validity, itself an abstract concept whose meaning is discemable only to the human mind. Smartgene held up Cybersource as stating that "this court held that section 101 did not embrace a process defined simply as using a computer to perform a series of mental steps that people, aware of each step, can and regularly do perform in their heads." Smartgene, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 at 954. Although reciting medical claims, Smartgene similarly analyzed data to produce a result for communication. As with the instant claims, the Smartgene claims produced advisory data. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that The Office focuses in on only particular claim elements, such as "analyzing a profile." Answer, p. 3. These elements are focused on in a vacuum, divorced from the context of the claim. In fact, the Office relies primarily upon this element ("analyzing profile") in its analysis of the claims and comparison to the various cases it cites. In doing so, the Office can hardly have considered the claim as a whole, despite its position to the contrary. Indeed, the Office discounts Appellant[ s'] arguments regarding the Office's failure to consider the claims as a whole. Reply Br. 2-3. As discussed, the claim as a whole recites detecting login data, identifying customer status data, requesting and analyzing customer profile data, receiving transaction request data, and creating and transmitting a message when the customer data meets recited criteria. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data. None of the limitations recite implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite functional results to be achieved by any and all possible means. 17 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 Claims involving data collection, analysis, and display are directed to an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., supra. As to the context, "the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellants' following argument: To the extent that the claims may recite an abstract idea, the claims recite significantly more. The claims recite physical devices, that interact, transform data into a different state or thing, and solve a technological problem. Each of these recitations is sufficient to establish patentability of the subject matter. Reply Br. 3. Simply reciting devices used for their ordinary purpose does not transform an abstract idea. "When claims like the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea and merely require generic computer implementation, they do not move into section 101 eligibility territory." Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Data transformation is part and parcel of what every generic computer does. Indeed this defines the purpose of general purpose computers. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "because a claim may recite a generic computer or a generic device does not automatically invalidate the claim under Â§ 101. It is how such devices are used, arranged, and what functions the devices perform that matter." Reply Br. 3. We agree 18 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 with the principle, but it is inapplicable here. The claim does not recite the use of an ATM per se, and recites the use of a financial transaction device only for its conventional use as a transaction entry device. That the steps happen to be performed by the same processor is of little consequence, as there is no recited technological advantage, other than simply being present, for the use of the same processor. The issue is whether meaningful limitations are recited. Nor does the claims' recitation of "present[ing] [offers] to potential customers" and "gathering ... statistics generated during said testing about how the potential customers responded to the offers" provide a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. These processes are well understood, routine, conventional data-gathering activities that do not make the claims patent eligible. . .. Like the claims in Mayo, which added only the routine steps of administering medication and measuring metabolite levels for the purposes of determining optimal dosage, here the addition of steps to test prices and collect data based on customer reactions does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363-1364 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that regardless, of whether a generic computer and a generic device (see Answer, p. 5) is recited, the claim defines the interaction between these two different devices that is both novel and non- obvious given the lack of prior art rejections. This interaction is clearly beyond any human mental capability or pen and paper solution. It is clear that the Office has clearly failed to consider the elements in combination as required. Reply Br. 4. The issue is eligibility of abstract subject matter, not novelty or obviousness. "[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. 19 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 The search for a Â§ 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating Â§ 102 novelty." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims recite specific, physical devices. Claim I recites, for example, "a processor", "a first financial transaction device," "a second financial transaction device," and "a portable electronic device." Claim I further requires a "user interface." The Office ignores these elements and fails to address how physical elements such as these can be abstract or can be replaced by a human mental processes or even pen and paper. The interaction of these physical devices is recited. For example, the first financial transaction device, and the portable electronic device interact through the transmitting of the message from the first financial transaction device to the portable electronic device. Reply Br. 4. All of the steps are merely recited as being performed by equipment. All of the steps could be done mentally in a different context. Again, context does not alter the analysis. See supra. Data reception, analysis, and transmission have been performed without equipment since the dawn of recorded history, indeed the recordation of history requires it. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the claims satisfy the machine or transformation test." Id. This repeats the transformation argument supra and is equally unpersuasive here. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the claims address a technological problem." Id. The claims address an information need, not a technological problem. The claims do no more than inform a customer as to a fee differential and an address where a financial transaction device may be found. 20 Appeal2017-006598 Application 13/371,813 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-14, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED 21