Lievens, Daniel et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 5, 201914200267 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/200,267 03/07/2014 Daniel Lievens IPP201327903/258415 4217 143177 7590 12/05/2019 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (United Parcel Service, Inc.) 2555 Grand Blvd. Kansas City, MO 64108-2613 EXAMINER REYES, REGINALD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2019 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): IPDOCKET@SHB.COM IPRCDKT@SHB.COM docketing.shb@clarivate.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte DANIEL LIEVENS, VINCENT DETHIER, and LUC PIRENNE ________________ Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 Technology Center 3600 ________________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–8 and 10–21, which constitute all of the pending claims.1 Appeal Br. 1. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter without significantly more. Final Action mailed Dec. 15, 2017 (“Final Act.”), 4–5. 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 United Parcel Service of America, Inc. Appeal Brief filed May 15, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”), 4. Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 2 STANDARD OF REVIEW We review 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 system for enabling users to reserve space at attended delivery/pickup locations to at least substantially guarantee that the attended delivery/pickup locations will have capacity to receive parcels requested to be delivered to them. In various embodiments, the system is configured to substantially automatically reserve space in response to receiving a request to delivery one or more parcels to a particular attended delivery/pickup location. In other embodiments, the system is configured to enable users to reserve space at attended delivery/pickup locations. Abstract. Independent claim 1 illustrates the appealed claims.2 It is reproduced below with formatting modified for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea: 1. A computer-implemented method of delivering a parcel to an attended delivery/pickup location, comprising: [i] providing, by at least one server, a selection of a first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations to a communicatively coupled device associated with a first user; [ii] receiving, by said at least one server, a request from the communicatively couple device associated with said first user to 2 Appellant argues all of the claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 10–36. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 3 deliver a first parcel to a first attended delivery/pickup location of said first set of said one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; [iii] receiving, from a mobile scanning device communicatively coupled to the at least one server and configured to determine location data upon scanning machine- readable indicia associated with a parcel, an indication that at least a first set of parcels was scanned at drop off, the indication comprising location information corresponding with the drop off as determined by the mobile scanning device upon scanning the first set of parcels; [iv] determining, by a processor associated with the at least one server, that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location based on the location information, the determining comprising; identifying a geolocation of each of the first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; comparing the location information to the geolocations of the first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; and determining that the location information corresponds to the geolocation of the first attended delivery/pickup location, thereby determining that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location; [v] estimating, by the processor associated with said at least one server, an available capacity of said first attended delivery/pickup location to store parcels based on a comparison of a total volume of storage space of said first attended delivery/pickup location and a total volume of parcels located at said first attended delivery/pickup location, wherein the total volume of parcels is at least partially based on the determining that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location; Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 4 [vi] based on said available capacity, determining that said first attended delivery/pickup location is able to accept a delivery of the first parcel; [vii] substantially automatically reserving space, by said at least one server, for said first parcel at said first attended delivery/pickup location; and [viii] facilitating, by said at least one server, said delivery of said first parcel from an origin location to said first attended delivery/pickup location. PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. SECTION 101 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– 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’ Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 5 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 (1854))); 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 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) (citation omitted); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 6 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 B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE: In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 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) (jointly referred to as “the 2019 Guidance”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the availability of the October update). Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 7 Under the 2019 Guidance, 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 (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. 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 Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 8 organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic principles or practices, or mental processes). 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54. Limitation [i] recites “providing . . . a selection of a first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations to . . . a first user.” Providing information to another reasonably can be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, providing information reasonably can be characterized as a method of managing interactions between people in the form of teaching. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes certain methods of organizing human activity that include managing interactions between people in the form of teaching as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation [i] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Limitation [ii] recites “receiving . . . a request from . . . said first user to deliver a first parcel to a first attended delivery/pickup location of said first set of said one or more attended delivery/pickup locations.” Receiving a request to deliver a package also can be characterized reasonably as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, such a request reasonably can be characterized as a commercial or legal interaction. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes commercial and legal interactions as certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute a patent- ineligible abstract idea. Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitation [ii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Limitation [iii] recites “receiving . . . an indication that at least a first set of parcels was scanned at drop off, the indication comprising location information corresponding with the drop off as determined by the mobile Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 9 scanning device upon scanning the first set of parcels.” Receiving such an indication reasonably can be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, receiving a notification of an event (that at least a first set of parcels was scanned at drop off) reasonably can be characterized as managing interactions between people, such as commercial or legal interactions in the form of business relations. Likewise, receiving an indication that comprises location information also reasonably can be characterized as managing interactions between people, such as in the form of teaching or learning. The additional language “as determined by the mobile scanning device upon scanning the first set of parcels” relates to an intangible property of the received location information—the intangible property of the manner in which the received location information was generated or determined. However, the manner in which the location information was determined is not affirmatively recited in limitation [iii]. As such, this intangible property of the received data does not add any additional elements or make the limitation [iii] any less abstract. For the reasons explained in relation to limitations [i] and [ii], then, limitation [iii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting patent-ineligible abstract ideas that are recognized by the 2019 Guidance. Limitation [iv] recites determining . . . that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location based on the location information, the determining comprising; identifying a geolocation of each of the first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 10 comparing the location information to the geolocations of the first set of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; and determining that the location information corresponds to the geolocation of the first attended delivery/pickup location, thereby determining that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location; Limitation [iv], including the three sub-steps, reasonably can be characterized as reciting mental processes that entail concepts that can be performed in the human mind. More specifically, the sub-steps of (1) identifying geolocations, (2) comparing the location information to the geolocations, and (3) determining that the location information and the geolocation correspond all reasonably can be characterized as entailing observations, evaluations, judgments, or opinions that can be performed in the human mind. The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed in the human minds as patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, limitations [iv], including its three sub-steps reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter. Limitation [v] recites estimating . . . an available capacity of said first attended delivery/pickup location to store parcels based on a comparison of a total volume of storage space of said first attended delivery/pickup location and a total volume of parcels located at said first attended delivery/pickup location, wherein the total volume of parcels is at least partially based on the determining that the first set of parcels is located at the first attended delivery/pickup location. Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 11 Performing an estimation reasonably can be characterized as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. As such, limitation [v] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent- eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance. Limitation [vi] recites “based on said available capacity, determining that said first attended delivery/pickup location is able to accept a delivery of the first parcel.” Making such a determination reasonably can be characterized as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. As such, limitation [vi] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance. Limitation [vii] recites “. . . reserving space . . . for said first parcel at said first attended delivery/pickup location.” Making a reservation reasonably can be characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, making a reservation of space reasonably can be characterized as a commercial or legal interaction including business relations. As such, limitation [vii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance. Limitation [viii] recites “facilitating . . . said delivery of said first parcel from an origin location to said first attended delivery/pickup location.” Appellant does not expressly define what acts facilitating a delivery covers or is limited to. See RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF NON-COMPLIANT APPEAL BRIEF (filed June 29, 2018), 3 (citing Spec. 1:21–23 for support for the “facilitating” limitation of claim 1); see also Spec. 1:21–23 (tautologically stating that the computer-implemented method of delivering a parcel to an attended delivery/pickup location Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 12 comprises “facilitating by at least one processor, delivery of the parcel from an origin location to the particular one of the one or more attended delivery/pickup locations”). We understand, then, that the claimed step of facilitating the delivery of a parcel is not limited merely to the final act of physically delivering the parcel, but additionally can read on any of various actions that further the delivery of the parcel. For example, facilitating the delivery reasonably can be interpreted as reading on the act of scheduling the parcel’s delivery, informing a person that the parcel is ready for delivery, or instructing a person to deliver the parcel. Facilitating the delivery of a parcel reasonably can be characterized, then, as a certain method of organizing human activity. More specifically, instructing an employee to deliver a parcel reasonably can be characterized as a commercial interaction including business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including teaching or following rules and instructions. As such, limitation [viii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent- eligible subject matter recognized by the 2019 Guidance. For these reasons, each of limitations [i]–[viii] reasonably can be characterized as reciting a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance. 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 provides Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 13 exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or combination of elements integrating 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). Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas because the claims expressly recite features [that], at minimum, require the use of a mobile scanning device communicatively coupled to the at least on server and configured to determine location data upon scanning machine-readable indicia associated with a parcel to produce an indication that at least a first set of parcels was scanned by the device at drop off. Appeal Br. 26. Appellant asserts that “The Office has not articulated a way . . . that a human mind with or without the aid of pen and paper could perform this function.” Id. This argument is unpersuasive. The fact that a claim recites that computer components carry out an abstract idea does not necessarily make the claim patent eligible. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. “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. Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to unsubstantiated mental processes or abstract ideas because Appellant’s claims recite a specific and concrete order of occurrence. Appeal Br. 23–26. This argument is unpersuasive. The fact that Appellant’s claims may recite a Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 14 very specific order of steps does not mean the claims recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. See, e.g., Flook, 437 U.S. at 593 (“respondent incorrectly assumes that if a process application implements a principle in some specific fashion, it automatically falls within the patentable subject matter of § 101.”). We additionally note that a claim need not be addressed to a single abstract idea to be patent ineligible. As our reviewing court has held, combining several abstract ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. 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.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were directed to a combination of abstract ideas). Appellant argues that “the instant claims recite a specific, discrete implementation of features that improves the computer’s capabilities, which is supported by the Specification.” Appeal Br. 31. Appellant further explains, the specific, discrete implementation of features . . . offer[s] an improvement to, among other things, to a computer’s ability to infer the storage location (i.e. the attended delivery/pickup location) of parcels based upon geolocation data generated by a scanning device configured to capture the devices geolocation at the time a parcel is scanned at drop off. Moreover, the instant claims recite a specific application that, among other things, estimates the available capacity of a delivery/pickup location, reserve space for a specific parcel at that location, and facilitate delivery of the specific parcel to that location based on the inferred storage location. Id. Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 15 This argument is unpersuasive. Some of what Appellant alleges to be improvements in the computer’s capabilities are, in fact, recitations of, or at most improvements to, the underlying recited abstract ideas, themselves. As explained in step 2A, prong 1, of the analysis above, inferring a parcel’s location, estimating the storage capacity of a storage location, and reserving space constitute abstract ideas that fall within the recognized categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. 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.”). Under Appellant’s theory, essentially all software applications for carrying out pre-Internet abstract ideas would be patent eligible because all software applications improve generic computers by enabling the computers to perform new functions. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 31. This is not the law. Instead, the method of using a computer system, as presently claimed, merely enables one to perform more efficiently the abstract steps of inferring locations, estimating storage capacity, and reserving space. That is, claim 1 merely entails using a computer system to aid in more efficiently carrying out the underlying abstract ideas. Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 16 See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com., L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing a claimed solution necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks from claims that “merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet”); see also Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (where an “invention makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer . . . [, it] is not a technical solution to a technical problem.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (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.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Relying on a “processor” to “perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”). Furthermore, claim 1’s first three steps of (1) a server providing a selection attended delivery/pickup locations, (2) a server receiving a request to deliver a parcel, and (3) receiving from a mobile scanning device an indication of a set of parcels was scanned all can be characterized reasonably as merely constituting 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 Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 17 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). 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 is claim 1 directed to a particular machine or transformation. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c). Nor has Appellant persuasively demonstrated that claim 1 adds any other meaningful limitations. MPEP § 2106.05(e). Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us that claim 1 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 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 limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Appellant argues that “the Specification provides factual evidence that embodiments include individual limitations that overcome challenges in facilitating delivery of parcels in a digital logistics system.” Appeal Br. 34. In support, Appellant cites the following passages of Appellant’s Specification: The use of such attended delivery/pickup locations may have a variety of different advantages. First, in certain situations, the recipient of a parcel may not typically be home when parcels are commonly delivered. In such situations, it may be useful to have the parcels delivered to an attended location where an individual is available to accept and/or sign for a particular parcel and Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 18 maintain the parcel in a safe location until the recipient is available to pick up the parcel. Id. (citing Spec. 5). the system may be adapted to: (1) receive an indication that a particular parcel has been scanned at drop off; (2) receive data regarding the location at which the parcel was scanned at drop off (e.g., using GPS functionality associated with a handheld device or other electronic device); (3) compare the location with the geolocations of one or more attended delivery/pickup locations; and (4) in response to determining that the location at which the parcel was scanned at least generally corresponds to the geolocation of a particular attended delivery/pickup location, verify that the parcel has been delivered to the particular attended delivery/pickup location Id. at 34–35 (citing Spec 16–17). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the cited examples do not support the Appellant’s position that the claimed invention overcomes technical challenges. That is, the cited passages merely explain what the invention entails. They do not explain that the invention improves some sort of computer technology. We instead agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification supports the Examiner’s determination that “the claims do not include additional elements that, when considered both individually and in ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 28, 2018 (“Ans.”), 5. More specifically, the Examiner notes that the additional elements recited beyond the abstract idea only entail the claimed “server,” “mobile scanning device,” “user device,” “processor,” “scanning device,” and global positioning system.” Id. Furthermore, the Examiner quotes, for example, the following passage of Appellant’s Specification to support the determination: Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 19 the computer 120 may operate in the capacity of a server or a client computer in a client-server network environment, or as a peer computer in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The Computer 120 may be a desktop personal computer (PC), a tablet PC, a set-top box (STB), a Personal Digital Assistant (PDA), a cellular telephone, a web appliance, a server, a network router, a switch or bridge, or any other computer capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise) that specify actions to be taken by that computer. Further, while only a single computer is illustrated, the term “computer” shall also be taken to include any collection of computers that individually or jointly execute a set (or multiple sets) of instructions to perform any one or more of the methodologies discussed herein. Ans. 5–6 (citing Spec. ¶ 29). For these reasons, Appellant fails to persuasively demonstrate that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that 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 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We, likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 2–8 and 10–21, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 10–36. CONCLUSION 35 U.S.C. § Claims Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome § 101 1–8 and 10–21 Appeal 2019-001254 Application 14/200,267 20 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation