G.Y.A Meeter Media Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2021

2021000156 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/735,642 06/10/2015 Niv KAGAN METR P0360 3818 122066 7590 03/29/2021 M&B IP Analysts, LLC 150 Morristown Road Suite 205 Bernardsville, NJ 07924-2626 EXAMINER NEAL, ALLISON MICHELLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): eofficeaction@appcoll.com pair@mb-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte NIV KAGAN and TAMIR SCHERZER ________________ Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non- final rejection of claims 1–20, which constitute all of the pending claims.1 Appeal Br. 9–30. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter (an abstract idea) without significantly more. Non-Final Action 4–7, mailed Feb. 14, 2020 (“Non-Final Act.”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ROCALYTICS LTD. Appeal Brief 3, filed June 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A method and system for automatically setting a meeting among a plurality of participants are disclosed. The method comprises receiving a request to set a meeting, wherein the request includes a list of the request participants and a duration of the meeting; determining a global availability for each of the requested participants; determining general behavioral availability for each of the requested participants and among the requested participants; determining aggregated behavioral availability among the requested participants; correlating the determined global availability, the aggregated behavioral availability, and the behavioral availability to result with at least one time slot having a higher acceptance probability; and sending a meeting invitation for the at least one time slot. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal.2 Claim 1 is reproduced below with paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea: 2 Appellant argues all of the claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 9–30. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 3 1. A computer implemented method performed at a server for automatically setting a meeting among a plurality of participants, comprising: [(a)] receiving, by the server, a request to set a meeting, wherein the request includes a list of requested participants and a duration of the meeting; [(b)] determining, by the server, a global availability matrix for each of the requested participants; [(c)] determining, by the server, a general behavioral availability matrix for each of the requested participants and among the requested participants; [(d)] determining, by the server, an aggregated behavior weight matrix among the requested participants, wherein the global availability matrix, the general behavioral matrix, and the aggregated behavior weight matrix are analyzed by a behavior analyzer module of the server configured to use information from on line calendars of the requested participants to derive predictive models of the requested participants; [(e)] determining, by the server, a weighted availability matrix based on the predictive models, where the weighted availability matrix comprises a sum of the global availability matrix, the general behavioral availability matrix, and the aggregated behavior weight matrix, wherein at least one time slot having a higher acceptance probability is determined based on potential time slot scores computed from a summation of the weighted availability matrix; and [(f)] sending, by the server, a meeting invitation for the at least one time slot. THE EXAMINER’S DETERMINATIONS The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites abstract ideas including mathematical concepts and methods of organizing human activity. Non- Final Act. 5–6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 59–61). The Examiner finds that claim 1 also recites additional elements—a server, a behavior analyzer module of the Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 4 server, and memory containing instructions that are executed by a processing unit of a system. Id. at 6. But the Examiner determines that these additional elements do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application. Id. According to the Examiner, the additional elements are recited at a high- level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract ideas using generic computer components. Id. The Examiner further determines that claim 1’s additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 6–7. Instead, the Examiner determines that the additional elements include general-purpose processors and components perform well- understood, routine, and conventional functions in a generic manner. Id. at 6. Appellant’s arguments are addressed in the Analysis section, below. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. SECTION 101 Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75– Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 5 77). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 6 principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 191 (citing Benson and Flook); see also, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019 Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 7 guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Guidance Update at 1. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020).3 Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites the following: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.4 MPEP §§ 2106.04(a), (d). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activity” in the field; or 3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated. 4 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II. Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 8 (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(d). ANALYSIS Step 2A, Prong 1 Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a). Limitation (b) of claim 1 recites, “determining . . . a global availability matrix for each of the requested participants.” Appellant describes an “availability matrix” as follows: “The availability matrix defines, per each email account of a user, when the user is available for a meeting and is generated respective of scheduled meetings designated in one or more of the user online calendars.” Spec. ¶ 28. Appellant describes “a global availability matrix” as a matrix “that designates the availability of the user across all the client devices 120 and emails (including those that are registered with server 130) of the user.” Id. at 29. Restated, limitation (b) recites a step that reads on determining a user’s availability by looking at multiple calendars, such as a work calendar and a home calendar. As such, limitation (b) recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 9 The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes such mental processes as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). The “mental processes” judicial exception also includes concepts that can be performed by a human with a pen and paper as well as those that can be performed entirely in the mind. See October 2019 Guidance Update at 9 (“A claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process”) (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, limitation (b) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Limitation (c) recites, “determining . . . a general behavioral availability matrix for each of the requested participants and among the requested participants.” Appellant’s Specification does not define “a general behavioral availability matrix.” See generally Spec. But Appellant’s Specification does set forth, “[t]he behavior analyzer module 232 and collaborative filter module 233 are configured to use information from the online calendars and additional events to analyze and derive a predictive model of the user and participants related to the user.” Spec. ¶ 38. Appellant further explains, “[t]he weekly [general behavior matrix (GBM)] 900 is generated respective of known, learnt, or monitored behavioral patterns of the participant. For example, for users that do not work during the weekends, the weekly GBM 900 will designate the time slots in Saturday and Sunday as occupied.” Spec. ¶ 69. Similar to limitation (b), then, limitation (c) recites a mental process that can be performed in the human mind, such as an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. Accordingly, limitation (c) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 10 Limitation (d) reads as follows: determining . . . an aggregated behavior weight matrix among the requested participants, wherein the global availability matrix, the general behavioral matrix, and the aggregated behavior weight matrix are analyzed . . . [using] information from on line calendars of the requested participants to derive predictive models of the requested participants. Appellant does not point to passages of the Specification that clearly explain what methodology is used to produce the aggregated behavior weight matrix (ABWM). See Appeal Br. 4–5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9, 24, 26– 29, 36, 41, 56, 65, 68; Figs. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8). But Appellant does depict a weekly compilation of ABWM data for a participant. Spec. ¶ 68; Fig. 8. The weekly ABWM of Figure 8 depicts a table of numbers, with each column of numbers representing scores for time slots that extend over the course of a given day. Fig. 8. As such, determining the ABWM, as claimed, either can be characterized as (1) a mathematical concept, including mathematical relationships, formulas or calculations, or at least as (2) a mental process such as a mental evaluation that can be performed either in the mind or with the aid of a pencil and paper. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes such mathematical concepts, as well as the noted mental processes, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). As such, limitation (d) recite a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Limitation (e) reads, as follows: Determining . . . a weighted availability matrix based on the predictive models, where the weighted availability matrix comprises a sum of the global availability matrix, the general behavioral availability matrix, and the aggregated behavior weight matrix, wherein at least one time slot having a higher Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 11 acceptance probability is determined based on potential time slot scores computed from a summation of the weighted availability matrix. Limitation (e) recites two different mathematical calculations—a summation to generate the weighted availability matrix and a summation to determine potential time slot scores. Accordingly, limitation (e) recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.04(a). For these reasons, at least each of limitations (b) through (e) recites a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”) Step 2A, Prong 2 Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether claim 1 recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a). Before addressing Appellant’s arguments, we note that the additional elements of various of claim 1’s limitations do not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they merely are directed to insignificant extra- solution activity. For example, claim 1’s first step recites, “receiving, by the server, a request to set a meeting, wherein the request includes a list of Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 12 requested participants and a duration of the meeting.” This step merely constitutes insignificant pre-solution activity: An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. MPEP § 2106.05(g). Similarly, claim 1’s final step (f) recites, “sending, by the server, a meeting invitation for the at least one time slot.” This step does not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because it merely constitutes the insignificant post-solution activity of transmitting data. E.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241–42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that printing or downloading generated menus constituted insignificant extra- solution activity); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). Turning to the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to the general concept of facilitating most likely available meeting times and venues between multiple recipients. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, “the [claimed] method is born of computer technology and provides improvement over prior attempts to have computers attempt to set meetings among a plurality of participants, of which there are [] many in the prior art. Id. In support of this ultimate argument, Appellant reproduces limitations (c) through (e), emphasizing that these determining steps entail Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 13 determining a general behavioral availability matrix, an aggregated behavior weight matric, a weighted availability matrix based on the predictive models, and set forth the requirement that the weighted availability matrix comprises a sum of the global availability matrix, the general behavioral availability matrix, and the aggregated behavior weight matrix. Appeal Br. 12; see also id. at 16–24 (setting forth similar arguments). These arguments are unpersuasive because the steps of determining the various matrices entail some of the recited abstract ideas. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.”). Appellant next argues, as explained in paragraph 41 of the specification as filed, by analyzing all of the non-structured data, the scheduling server 130 is configured to predict, at high probability, the availability of required participants. As is well known, it is difficult for computers to deal with non-structured data. Thus, the claim is directed to a way for computers to improve their operation with non-structured data, in the scheduling context, thus again providing an improvement to the operation of the computer. Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 24 (presenting similar arguments). This argument is unpersuasive because it merely pertains to the invention as disclosed in the Specification. Claim 1 does not recite any Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 14 requirements as to the structure of the data. That is, Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the language of claim 1. Appellant argues that claimed abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because the claims do not pre-empt any abstract idea. Appeal Br. 13; see also id. at 20–21 (presenting similar arguments). This argument is unpersuasive. We recognize that the Court has described “the concern that drives this exclusionary principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for patent eligibility. As our reviewing court has explained: “The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. Appellant argues that claim 1 is not implemented on a generic computer, but rather “the claim could be implemented with specific non- generic hardware for certain parts thereof.” Appeal Br. 24. Appellant then asserts that the present invention might be considered similar to the invention in Diehr. Id. at 25. More specifically, Appellant argues that in Diehr, mathematical concepts were used in a technical application to produce cured rubber: Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 15 in Diehr the calculation of the determination to open the mold could be analogized to determining the proper time slot of the instant claims and the step of opening the mold in Diehr could be analogized to the sending of the meeting invitation in the instant claim. Thus, Diehr shows that the instant claims are patent eligible notwithstanding any use of mathematics that may be made in the claim. Id. This argument is unpersuasive because sending a meeting invitation does not entail a technical application. As was already explained, sending information in response to performing mathematical calculations and making determinations merely constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 at 1241–42 (holding that printing or downloading generated menus constituted insignificant extra-solution activity). Appellant argues, “in the instant claims, the server[,] with a dedicated behavior analyzer module[,] is directed to an improvement in the specific functionality of determining a time slot in that it achieves a higher acceptance probability.” Appeal Br. 26 (emphasis omitted). This argument is unpersuasive because making this sort of determination is not an improvement to a specific functionality, but, instead, entails using a generic computer to perform an abstract analysis more efficiently. Contrary to Appellant’s assertions, performing an abstract idea more efficiently does not constitute “a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id. at 27 (emphasis omitted); See Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the 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.”). Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 16 For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 is directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor does Appellant persuasively demonstrate that claim 1 is directed to a particular machine or transformation, or that claim 1 adds any other meaningful limitations for the purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c), (e). Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 1 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Step 2B Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether claim 1 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well- understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification, by describing computer-related components at a high level without details of structure or implementation, indicates that the recited additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional. For example, Appellant’s Specification explains, It should be noted that the scheduling server 130 typically includes a processing unit (not shown) and a memory (not shown). The processing unit may include one or more processors. The one or more processors may be implemented with any combination of general-purpose microprocessors, multi-core processors, microcontrollers, digital signal processors (DSPs), field programmable gate array (FPGAs), programmable logic devices (PLDs), controllers, state machines, gated logic, discrete hardware components, dedicated hardware finite state Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 17 machines, or any other suitable entities that can perform calculations or other manipulations of information. Spec. 34, cited in Examiner’s Answer 11, mailed July 24, 2020. Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that consideration of these conventional elements as an ordered combination adds any significance beyond the additional elements, as considered individually. Rather, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the invention is directed to an abstract idea that is made more efficient with generic computer components—facilitating meetings between multiple participants by automatically determining meeting times and venues mutually beneficial to all participants across all platforms with minimal user input. Spec. ¶ 6. For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an exception to patent-eligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. We, likewise, affirm the 101 rejection of claims 2 through 20, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 9–30. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20 Appeal 2021-000156 Application 14/735,642 18 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED