STUBHUB, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2022

2021003431 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/178,142 02/11/2014 Amy Colleen Hanly 070286-0066 4404 1923 7590 03/18/2022 MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY LLP The McDermott Building 500 North Capitol Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 EXAMINER ROBINSON, KYLE G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/18/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): mweipdocket@mwe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMY COLLEEN HANLY __________________ Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JAMES P. CALVE, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20, which are all of the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Stubhub, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 2 Claims 7 and 16 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. (Claims App.) 18, 20; Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 recites a system. 1. A system comprising: a memory storing preferences of a user related to events; and one or more processors in communication with the memory and adapted to cause the system to perform operations comprising: cause transmission of a plurality of signals from a network of Bluetooth beacons installed at an event; electronically receive, from a user device of the user at the event, measured signal strengths, as measured by the user device, of at least one of the plurality of signals transmitted by the network of Bluetooth beacons installed at the event; calculate a location of the user device within the event using positioning techniques based on correlating the measured signal strengths with predetermined signal fingerprints of the plurality of signals, the predetermined signal fingerprints associating signal strengths of the plurality of signals and locations within the event; determine and store in the memory the preferences including a seat location for another seat at the location different from an assigned seat of the user based on the location of the user device detected by the network of Bluetooth beacons at the location of the another seat in the event and further based on a period of time spent by the user device at the location; and in response to the determined preferences of the user of the user device, electronically transmit electronic offer information over a communication network to the user device. REJECTION Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 8-16. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-6, 8-15, and 17-20 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines that storing preferences of a user related to events, calculating a location of the user within the event, determining and storing preferences including a seating location for another seat at the location different from an assigned seat of the user based on the location of the user at the location of another seat in the event and a period of time spent at the location, and transmitting offer information to the user in response to the determined preferences of the user cover performance in the mind and fall within the mental processes grouping. Final Act. 3-4. The Examiner determines that claim 1 also recites certain methods of organizing human activity by covering performance of a sales activity. Id. at 4. The Examiner determines that additional elements of a “memory” and “one or more processors in communication with the memory” are recited at a high level of generality as instructions to apply the judicial exception with generic computing components. Id. at 4-5. The Examiner also determines that transmitting signals from a network of Bluetooth beacons, electronically receiving measured signal strengths of the signals at a user device, and using the measured signal strengths to calculate a location of the user device are extra-solution activity. Id. at 5. The Examiner further determines that the additional elements are not significantly more than the judicial exception, and transmitting and receiving signals from a Bluetooth beacon network to calculate a location of a user device by correlating signals with fingerprints are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Id. at 5-6. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 4 Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217-18. The USPTO has issued guidance for this framework. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”); MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106 (9th Ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas in the Revised Guidance (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.3 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55. 3 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 5 If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim (3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Statutory Subject Matter / Revised Guidance Step 1 Claims 1 recites a “system,” which is within a statutory category of a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites limitations that can be performed in the human mind as mental processes and the limitations also recite commercial interactions involving advertising, marketing, and sales activities within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Final Act. 3-4; see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The focus of the claims is on organizing the activities of customers at public events such as entertainment and sporting events in order to manage their seating preferences and provide targeted offers and advertisements that are specific to the customer. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2, 10-12, 39, 45, 49, 54. The title of the application, SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MANAGING SEATING LOCATIONS AND PREFERENCES, reflects this focus as do the limitations of claim 1, which store user event preferences for events and monitor user activities at an event to determine seating location preferences of a user so electronic offer information can be communicated to the user’s device. See Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 6 According to the Specification, the claims meet a “need for a system or method that helps determine a customer’s event and seating preferences to provide better offers to the customer.” Spec. ¶ 2. They do so by placing a network of Bluetooth beacons at events to transmit signals that are received by a user device and measured to determine their respective signal strengths that are compared to predetermined signal fingerprints for event locations to determine a user’s seating preferences. Id. ¶¶ 10, 23, 28-42, Fig. 5. Consistent with this description, the claimed system causes a network of Bluetooth beacons at the event to transmit signals that can be received and collected by a user device so the signal strengths can be measured, analyzed, and correlated to predetermined signal fingerprints associated with signal strengths of the plurality of signals and different locations within the event. See Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). This location fingerprint technique uses signal profiles that are predetermined for each location in a venue such as a stadium. Spec. ¶ 36. A stronger received signal indicates a shorter distance from a beacon to a user device while a weaker signal may indicate a longer distance. Id. ¶ 35. Based on a signal profile detected by user device 110, a location of user device 110 may be determined by referencing a database of signal profiles associated with locations in the stadium. Id. ¶ 36. The system also determines user preferences for other seat locations at the event different from an assigned seat of the user by detecting the location of the user device at the location of another seat in the event and a period of time spent by the user device at that location. Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). The location of the user’s assigned seat may be determined when the user is stationary at a particular seat for an extended amount of time. Id. ¶ 40. The system may track a history of a user’s seating positions at an event. Id. ¶ 41. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 7 The system uses the results of this data collection and analysis to “transmit electronic offer information over a communication network to the user device.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.). Personalized advertisements are offered to a user based on preferences determined by the system. Spec. ¶¶ 11, 45. Seat upgrades may be offered to another seating section. Id. ¶ 42. A user’s preferences are analyzed to improve the customer experience and increase sales via personally tailored advertisements and offers. Id. ¶ 39. Such data processing steps have been held to recite an abstract idea. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[F]iltering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well- known method of organizing human behavior.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner by attaching classification data is a method of organizing human activity); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing and extracting certain data in the collection, and storing the data recite steps humans always have performed to organize such data and activity); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The parsing and comparing of claims 1-3 and 9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction . . . and the classifying in an organized manner of TLI . . . .”). Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 8 Here, claim 1 similarly collects data from Bluetooth beacons and analyzes the collected signal data to measure signal strength and determine a user’s location at an event. The method in Electric Power collected and analyzed measurements from a wide range of data streams of an electric power grid based on limits, sensitivities, rates of change of measurements from the data streams and dynamic stability metrics derived from analysis of the measurements of the data streams including frequency instability, voltages, power flows, phase angles, damping, and oscillation modes derived from phasor measurements and other power system data sources in which the metrics were indicative of events, grid stress, and/or grid instability over a wide area. It also displayed results of the analysis and diagnoses of events. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351-52. Yet, this collection and analysis of data streams and measurements recited mental processes. See id. at 1354, 1355. Similarly, here, a person can collect measured signal strengths from a user device and compare those measured signal strengths to fingerprints of predetermined signal strengths to correlate (match) the measured signals to a “fingerprint” of a particular location. See CyberSource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (a person can obtain information about Internet credit card transactions by reading records in a preexisting database, make a map of credit card numbers by writing down a list of credit card transactions made from a particular IP address (location), and use that map to determine if credit card transactions are valid by identifying transactions that use different credit cards with different names from the same IP address); Ans. 3 (a person can compare a measured signal of 10 dBm to a predetermined signal strength of 10 dBm for Location A to identify the signal as originating at Location A). Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 9 Appellant argues that the system provides targeted offers to a user by locating the user’s device using detected Bluetooth beacon strengths from a plurality of signals transmitted by a network of Bluetooth beacons installed at the event at the user’s device to determine seating locations of a user at an event and using these user seating preferences to present a targeted offer. Appeal Br. 8-9. Appellant asserts that these activities cannot be performed by a human measuring the strengths of signals from Bluetooth beacons. Id. This argument is not persuasive primarily because it misperceives the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner did not treat receiving signals and measuring signal strengths by the user device as mental processes. See Final Act. 3-4 (identifying limitations that recite mental processes and excluding the limitations of electronically receiving from a user device at the event measured signal strengths as measured by the user device from being mental steps). The Examiner explained the rejection as follows: While the receiving of measured signal strengths of Bluetooth beacons is performed electronically, the actual calculation of the user location based on said measured signal strengths may indeed be performed by a human since it is merely the analysis of collected data. For example, if it is predetermined that a signal strength of 10 dBm is associated with Location A, then upon learning that the signal strength is 10 dBm, the human would determine that the signal originates at Location A. Ans. 3. Appellant provides no persuasive argument why a person cannot compare (correlate) measured signal strengths with signal fingerprints of locations at an event to identify a user device’s location as a mental process of observation, evaluation, and opinion similar to the received electric power grid measurements in Electric Power and the credit card transactions that were collected, organized, and analyzed in CyberSource as discussed above. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 10 Appellant also asserts that the claims are similar to those in SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), which is cited in the Revised Guidance as an example of a method that cannot be performed in the human mind. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant argues that the claims here are similar to the method of SiRF “for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an absolute time reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS receiver to a plurality of satellites.” Id. Appellant argues that the human mind is not equipped to perform the claimed limitations in this appeal. Id. This argument also misperceives the rejection. The Examiner did not treat the transmission of signals from Bluetooth beacons or measurement of signal strengths by a user device as mental processes. See Final Act. 3. We also agree with the Examiner that collecting and analyzing signal data from Bluetooth beacons to identify a user’s location(s) at an event in order to serve targeted marketing offers is a method of organizing human activities involving commercial interactions, advertising, marketing, and sales activities. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Indeed, even Appellant characterizes the focus of the claims in this way. Appeal Br. 8. [T]he claims address obtaining the location of a user device using detected Bluetooth beacon strength from a user device and based on the determined location indicating a seat location at a location other than an assigned seat of the user, storing user preferences and presenting the user with an electronic offer to the user device. Hence, based on determining that the user prefers a seat other than their assigned seat using location tracking of a user device, the system and method provides a targeted offer to the user. Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis added); see also Spec. ¶¶ 11, 39, 54, Abstract. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 11 Targeting offers to users based on seating location preferences is a form of targeted advertising, marketing, and sales and fundamental practice long prevalent in our system. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tailoring content delivered to a user based on information known about the user and user navigation data to include a user’s location and address is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 219); see also British Telecommunications PLC v. IAC/InteractiveCorp, 813 F. App’x 584, 587 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (tailoring information based on a user’s location is an abstract idea); In re Morsa, 809 F. App’x 913, 917 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (customizing information based on information known about the user and matching users to an advertiser is a form of targeted advertising). In addition, similar claims to tracking the location of an object have been held to be an abstract idea. See Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App’x 989 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Automated Tracking, the claimed system located, identified, and tracked an object by using a first transponder attached to the object and a reader configured to receive first transponder data via radio frequency signals, an antenna in communication with the reader, and a processor that is coupled to the reader to receive and generate detection information. Id. at 991-92. Collecting data from sensors, analyzing that data, and determining results based on analysis of the data without requiring a particular configuration of the RFID system components was an abstract idea. Id. at 993-94. Here, Bluetooth beacons form a generic “network” to transmit signals that are received by a generic “user device.” Accordingly, we determine that claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 recite the abstract idea identified above. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 12 Alice Step One / Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two: We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine that a memory, one or more processors, a network of Bluetooth beacons, and a user device do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These elements are generic computers and components used as tools to apply the abstract idea. They do not improve the functioning of computers or other technology. They do not effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. They do not implement the abstract idea on a particular machine that is integral to the claims. They do not transform or reduce a particular article or item to a different state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The Specification describes the memory, processors, Bluetooth beacon network, and user device as generic components that perform generic functions of collecting, transmitting, analyzing, and storing data as claimed. Spec. ¶¶ 14-15 (system 100), 16-23 (user device 110), 28-38 (network of Bluetooth beacons), 68-71 (computer system 400), 70-71 (memory), Figs. 1 (networked system 100), 4 (computer system 400), 5 (network of Bluetooth beacons 510). Appellant does not purport to have invented or improved any of these components or their functions. See Appeal Br. 9-13. Appellant argues that these elements are particular devices that are an integral part of the method. Id. at 12-13. Appellant argues that the system automatically performs steps for the convenience of the user who could not determine preferred ticketing and other features. Id. at 10-12. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 13 A generic computer implementation is not sufficient to make an abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[M]ere 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.”) (citation omitted); BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“We have consistently held, however, that claims are not saved from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.”); TLI, 823 F.3d at 611 (“[N]ot every claim that recites concrete, tangible components escapes the reach of the abstract-idea inquiry”; the specification makes clear that a telephone unit and server “merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.”); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1368 (claiming a database, a user profile, and a communication medium recited generic computer elements that performed generic computer tasks that did not make the abstract idea patent eligible). “[T]he claims here do not ‘ha[ve] the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it.’” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Merely claiming ‘those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’ does not make a claim eligible at step one.”) (citations omitted); see also SAP, 898 F.3d at 1167-68 (to avoid ineligibility, a claim must have the specificity to transform it from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held ineligible under § 101 . . . .”). Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 14 Here, the system and network of Bluetooth beacons are claimed as generic components rather than as particular machines that are integral to the claim to transmit and process data. There is no asserted improvement to the Bluetooth beacon network or measuring signal strength. Claim 1 recites a result rather than a particular technical way of achieving that result similar to the claims in Automated Tracking. Automated Tracking, 723 F. App’x at 994 (“The claim does not recite any ‘particular configuration’ or specialized arrangement of the RFID system components. It does not specify the relative location of the claimed components. It only requires a single antenna, and does not specify a particular configuration for the antenna to achieve the allegedly more systematic determination of the location, identity, and movement of the transponders.”); see also Cisco Sys., Inc. v. Uniloc 2017 LLC, 813 F. App’x 495, 497 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (ranking stations of an ad-hoc system based on antenna performance characteristics and selecting the station with the highest rank to act as master in a network involved the familiar concepts of ranking and selecting untethered to any specific or concrete implementation and were directed to an abstract idea). In SiRF, the “GPS receiver” was integral to the claim because the method calculated the absolute position of the GPS receiver by providing pseudoranges that estimated the range of the GPS receiver to a plurality of GPS satellites, estimated an absolute time of reception of plural satellite signals, estimated a position of the GPS receiver, and provided satellite ephemeris data in order to compute the absolute position and timing using the pseudoranges by updating the estimate of an absolute time and position of the GPS receiver. SiRF, 601 F.3d at 1331-32. Here, Bluetooth beacons generically transmit signals that are received by a user device and measured. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 15 Appellant argues that the “claims also perform steps not previously performed by the system automatically not only for user convenience, but for the practical ability for the user to actually perform such a task.” Appeal Br. 10. Automating a process for a user’s convenience does not transform an abstract idea. Nor do generic speed or efficiency improvements resulting from a generic computer implementation improve computers or technology. See Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“But the need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]utomation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“Using a computer to accelerate an ineligible mental process does not make that process patent-eligible.”). Appellant argues eligibility based on claim 1 of Example 42 of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas. Appeal Br. 12. Example 42 is a method of storing patient information in a standardized format by allowing users remote access over a network to update patient information in a non-standardized format that is converted to a standardized format, stored, and sent as updated data in a message to all users over the network in real time. Id. at 18-19. We find no similarity to the claims here. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 16 Any increases in user satisfaction and ticket sales are not technical improvements. See Appeal Br. 12; Spec. ¶¶ 39, 67. Here, the signals from generic Bluetooth beacons are received at a user device that measures their signal strength in some undefined way without any apparent improvement to computers, networks, Bluetooth, or other technology. Transmitting electronic offer information based on user preferences determined from the data collection and analysis by the claimed system is part of the abstract idea or extra-solution activity. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[W]e have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B: We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. This step is satisfied when the limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367. Individually, the additional elements are conventional components that perform conventional functions. The system comprises generic memory and processors that perform the abstract idea. The memory also stores user preferences. The Bluetooth beacons transmit signals that are received by a generic user device that measures their strength in some undefined way. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 17 The Examiner provides evidence that receiving and measuring the strength of signals transmitted from Bluetooth beacons to locate a user’s device is a conventional technology known as Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). Final Act. 6 (citing Wikipedia, Received Signal Strength Indication4; Ghosh5 ¶ 5; Edge6 ¶ 6); Ans. 3-5 (same). The Wikipedia article discusses measuring signal strength. Ghosh and Edge teach the conventional use of RSSI to determine the location of a user in a wireless network by measuring the signal strength at a mobile device. Ghosh ¶ 5; Edge ¶ 6. As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than when they are considered individually. They perform well-known, conventional mobile device RSSI location techniques using generic Bluetooth network beacons and a generic user device. Appellant does not purport to have invented or improved the Bluetooth beacon network or user device. Nor is the configuration of the Bluetooth beacon network or its operation shown to be other than well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Specification describes these elements and their functions at a high level of generality without any technical details to indicate improvements to these components or any of their functions. See Spec. ¶¶ 16, 23, 28-38, Fig. 5. Appellant argues that the Examiner has not satisfied the Berkheimer burden of showing that the elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal Br. 13-14. Yet, Wikipedia, Ghosh, and Edge teach wireless beacons whose signals are received by a mobile device to assess its location based on signal strength as a well-known, conventional technology. 4 See https://web.archive.Org/web/20080927233921/https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Received_signal_strength_indication 5 US 2009/0186602 A1, published July 23, 2009. 6 US 2015/0133173 A1, published May 14, 2015. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 18 “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. “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.” Id. at 1290; see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information. . . . We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”). Appellant also contends that claim 2 of Example 35 of the USPTO’s December 2016 examples is analogous to the instant claims. Appeal Br. 14- 15. Claim 2 of Example 35 recites a method of authenticating a customer’s identity for an ATM transaction by obtaining customer-specific information from a bank card, comparing the information to customer information from a financial institution to verify the customer’s identity, generating a random code to send to a mobile device registered to the customer, reading by the ATM an image from the customer’s mobile device generated in response to the random code, decrypting the read image, and analyzing the decrypted code and generated code to determine if they match to verify a customer’s identity. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Business Methods, Dec. 2016, at 7-8. We fail to see any similarity to claim 1 of this appeal. Appeal 2021-003431 Application 14/178,142 19 Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-20 as directed to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 without significantly more. DECISION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 101 Eligibility 1-6, 8-15, 17-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED