T. Bender

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2022

2021002619 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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. 13/472,166 05/15/2012 T. Gregory Bender 00409/003335-US2 8394 7590 03/31/2022 Message Logix, Inc. Suite 400 245 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 EXAMINER GEBREMICHAEL, BRUK A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/31/2022 PAPER Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte T. GREGORY BENDER ____________ Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12-21, 23, 24, 27, and 28. 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(a). Appellant identifies Message Logix, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 2 THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to “a system for managing critical student information,” and more specifically, “a system for permitting authorized users to access information and send messages for students that are members of particular groups.” Spec. 2. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below as illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for transmitting critical student information to at least one of a: multiple forms of communication and to multiple destinations for a particular student, comprising the following steps: storing student information for each one of a plurality of students on at least one database, the database communicating with a server; associating at least one of a plurality of group identifiers with the stored student information for each of the plurality of students, wherein each of the group identifiers identifies a group of students; storing a plurality of user identifiers on at least one database, the database communicating with the server, wherein each user identifier identifies a particular user; associating with each user identifier at least one of the plurality of group identifiers wherein each of the group identifiers associated with a particular user identifier identifies a group access for the particular user identifier; determining by the server, whether the student information has a group identifier associated therewith that is also a group identifier associated with the user identifier; transmitting critical student information to the user identified by the user identifier, only if the student information stored for the one or more particular students has a group identifier associated therewith that is also a group identifier associated with the user identifier. Appeal Br. 35 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 3 THE REJECTIONS2 The following rejections are before us on appeal: I. Claims 1-7, 9, 12-21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception to patentable subject matter. II. Claims 1-6, 9, 12-19, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Ozburn.3 III. Claims 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ozburn. OPINION Rejection I Appellant argues all pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 12-22. We select claim 1 as representative, and claims 2-7, 9, 12-21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 stand or fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the courts interpret Section 101 as excluding abstract ideas from patentable subject matter. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 601 (2010); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of such ideas. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 3, 4, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Advisory Act. 1. 3 US 2005/0091368 A1, published, April 28, 2005. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 4 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)). According to the Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo framework, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea. Id. If so, we must consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. Id. In situations where an abstract idea is implemented on a computer, the first step in the Alice/Mayo analysis asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Supreme Court characterizes the second step of the analysis as “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ - i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”’ Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). We apply the PTO’s published guidance on the application of Section 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter the “Guidance”). The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this Guidance and subsequent updates at § 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev. June 2020). Under the Guidance, in conducting step one of the Alice framework, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) a judicial exception such as an abstract idea; and Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 5 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05((a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See generally Guidance; see also MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Step 1: Does claim 1 fall within a statutory category of § 101? It is undisputed that claim 1 recites a method (or process) for transmitting critical student information, and therefore, is within an enumerated statutory class of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Step 2A, Prong One: Does claim 1 recite a judicial exception? Next, we determine whether claim 1 recites subject matter falling within a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50-52. The Guidance identify the following groupings of subject matter as abstract ideas: (a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; and (3) certain methods of organizing human activity. The courts have recognized a method of organizing human activity as an abstract idea in the following exemplary cases: In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (classifying and storing digital images is one of certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 6 idea); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit is one of certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (screening messages is one of certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus an abstract idea); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (filtering internet content is one of certain methods of organizing human behavior, and thus an abstract idea). The Examiner determines that the method for transmitting critical student information of claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of one of certain methods of organizing human activity. Final Act. 3-5. Appellant submits that “the invention recited in the claims reads: ‘transmitting critical student information to the user identified by the user identifier, ONLY if the student information stored for the one or more particular students has a group identifier associated therewith that is also a group identifier associated with the user identifier.’” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception because “[t]he critical student information is not simply transmitted, it is transmitted in accordance with a security protocol.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant submits that “the claimed invention . . . improves the way a computer determines whether to transmit specific information to specific users,” for example, similar to the claimed invention in Enfish, which improved computer data storage and retrieval relative to a memory by using a self-referential table. Id. at 15 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 2, 10, 14, 15, 25, 32; Enfish at 1336-1339); see also Reply Br. 3-5 (stating that Appellant’s citations to the Specification Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 7 “are essentially identical to the elements recited in the claimed invention” and concluding that “[t]his shows that the claimed invention improves the way a computer determines whether to transmit specific information to specific users”). We do not agree with Appellant that only the claim limitation relative to the transmission of student information recites an abstract idea (i.e., a certain method of organizing human activity). See, e.g., Appeal Br. 14. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the entirety of the limitations of claim 1, but for the recitations of storing information or identifiers “on at least one database . . . communicating with a server” and also making a determination “by the server,” recite the abstract idea of managing information. See, e.g., Final Act. 3 (citing “organizing and storing data relating to each of a plurality of users according to one or more rules,” “establishing one or more privileges to a user(s),” and “transmitting information” as recitations of the abstract idea); Id. at 4-5. In other words, we find that the steps of storing both student information and user identifiers, and also of associating (or grouping) the stored student information and user identifiers according to group identifiers, for the purpose of transmitting certain information to users based on the outcome of a determination as to whether the student information and user identifiers have group identifiers in common, recite a method for managing information, including gathering, cataloging, grouping, comparing, and transmitting information, in the context of messaging student information. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea, namely, one of certain methods of organizing human activity via information management. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 8 Step 2A, Prong Two: Does claim 1 recite one or more additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a “practical application”? We do not assume that all claims that “recite” an abstract idea are “directed to” the abstract idea because “all inventions [at some level] embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 611 (quoting Alice). Instead, “the claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1312, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends; however, if the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea, then the inquiry proceeds to the second step of the Alice framework. Here, we consider whether the method of claim 1 includes additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 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. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The Examiner finds that any additional elements (i.e., in addition to the abstract idea of the information management) fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Final Act. 5-6. Appellant argues that the limitations of claim 1, except for the recitation of “transmitting . . . information” are elements in addition to the abstract idea, because “[t]hese additional elements are all steps the claimed invention employs to ensure that critical student information is ONLY Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 9 transmitted to users having user identifiers associated with a group identifier that is also associated with the student information.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant submits that “‘[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field,’” and that “the [S]pecification describes the claimed invention as an improvement in the ability to regulate and control access to student information.” Id. at 18 (citations omitted). Appellant concludes that “the improvement shows that the combination of additional elements in the claimed invention have integrated the exception into a practical application.” Id. at 19. We find that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that uses computers (i.e., a database communicating with a server) as a tool to manage the messaging of student information. Cf. Appeal Br. 38-39 (Claims App.) (reciting “software” programmed to store, associate, receive, identify, and make determinations about data); See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[a]bsent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). Indeed, the Specification discloses that such information management is performed within a system 100 that includes a server 102, a network 104 (i.e., the Internet), and personal computers 106 residing with parents of students (i.e., who provide student information) and school administrators (i.e., users), and Appellant does not sufficiently identify, nor can we find, any improvement to the functioning of these computing components recited in the claims. See Ans. 11-15. Thus, we find that these claim limitations, separately and as an ordered Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 10 combination, do not set forth a specific improvement to the functioning of a computer. As discussed supra, the only recited elements in claim 1, which are in addition to the abstract idea itself, are the storing of information or identifiers “on at least one database . . . communicating with a server” and also making a determination “by the server.” 4 See, e.g., Ans. 18 (“Appellant is improperly identifying the limitations directed to the abstract idea and those directed to the additional elements”); id. at 17-19. We also find that a database in communication with a server is a description of generic computing components that is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. We also do not consider controlling which information is allowed to be communicated between a database, server, or other computer, to be an improvement to the communication system of the computer network. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, namely, one of certain methods of organizing human activity via information management, including gathering, cataloging, grouping, comparing, and transmitting information, in the context of messaging student information. Step 2B: Does claim 1 recite an “inventive concept” or “significantly more”? We next consider whether claim 1 recites any elements, individually or as an ordered combination, that transform the abstract idea into a patent 4 Cf. Appeal Br. 38-39 (Claims App.) (independent claim 20 recites additional, generic computing components, such as, “a server or computer,” “a storage device,” “electronic communication” between the storage device and server or computer, and also “software”). Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 11 eligible application, e.g., by providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. The Guidance similarly state that, under Step 2B, “examiners should . . . evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination . . . to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (emphasis added). We find that the additional elements of a database communicating with a server, as recited in claim 1, are insufficient to transform the abstract idea of managing the transmission of information into a patent eligible application, but rather represent well-understood, routine, or conventional computing components. See Final Act. 5 (finding that “a database, a server, a computer, a storage device . . . etc. . . . merely serv[e] to perform conventional computer functions”). Appellant again identifies the claimed steps of storing, associating, and making determinations relative to the information and identifiers as additional elements and argues that the Examiner fails to provide evidence that such additional elements are conventional. Appeal Br. 21-22. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner’s identification of the computing elements (i.e., a database communicating with a server) as the elements in claim 1 that are in addition to the abstract idea itself. We also rely on the Specification as evidence that a database in communication with a server are conventional computing components: “[w]ith the improved capabilities of computer software and networks with respect to handling information storage and retrieval, various types of systems have arisen for automating, to various degrees, the management of information.” Spec. ¶ 3; Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 12 see also Ozburn, Fig. 1 (depicting a database 11 in communication with a server 10). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and claims 2-7, 9, 12-21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 fall therewith. Rejection II Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4-6, 9, 12-15, 18, 19, and 28 Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Ozburn discloses storing student information (i.e., a student’s name) for each one of a plurality of students on at least one database communicating with a server, as claimed. Final Act. 13, 14 (“each student registers by providing various student-data; such as: name . . .”); see, e.g., Ozburn ¶¶ 64-66 (“Data that defines all students, parents and faculty should be provided so heads of household, family members and students can be defined to the system software,” including first and last names). The Examiner also finds that Ozburn discloses storing a plurality of user identifiers (i.e., parents’ names) on at least one database communicating with a server, wherein each user identifier (i.e., parent name) identifies a particular user (i.e., parent), as claimed. Ans. 4; see also id. at 29 (Ozburn discloses that “the first and last name [of the parent is used] to correctly identify a given user”). The Examiner further finds that Ozburn’s “family group” corresponds to the claimed group identifier, wherein Ozburn’s family group identifier includes “students and other family members that comprise the family.” Ans. 4 (citing Ozburn ¶ 96). Because, in Ozburn, the names and relationships of the family members, including students, are entered into the database and associated with a family name, the Examiner finds that Ozburn Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 13 discloses associating the group identifier (i.e., family name) with the stored student information for each student (i.e., students’ names in the family), wherein the group identifier (i.e., family name) identifies a group of students (i.e., students in the family), and also associating the group identifier (i.e., family name) with each user identifier (i.e. parents’ name), wherein each group identifier (i.e., family name) associated with a particular user (i.e., parent) identifies a group access (i.e., access to information or authorization for the receipt of messages) for the particular user identifier (i.e., parent name), as claimed. Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that Ozburn discloses determining by the server whether the student information (i.e., student name) has a group identifier (i.e., family name) associated therewith that is also a group identifier (i.e., family name) associated with the user identifier (i.e., parent name), and if so, transmitting critical student information5 (i.e., emergency information about the student) to the user (i.e., parent) identified by the user identifier (i.e., parent name) only if the student information (i.e., student name) stored for a particular student has a group identifier (i.e., family name) associated therewith that is also a group identifier (i.e., family name) associated with the user identifier (i.e., parent name), as claimed. Ans. 4. For example, the Examiner finds that 5 We interpret the recited “critical student information” as being of a different scope than the “student information stored for each one of a plurality of students.” For example, “critical student information” may be emergency information about a student. Thus, to the extent Appellant argues that “[t]he name of the specific student is not the student information which is transmitted,” in Ozburn, claim 1 fails to specify that the transmitted “critical student information” is the same information as the “student information” stored in the database. Reply Br. 22. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 14 Ozburn indeed determines the right user to which the information must be transmitted (e.g. the parent of the student), based on the user identifier associated with the group identifier (e.g. the group identifier “Family” lists emergency contact information, such as information regarding the parent, including the name of the parent), and wherein the group identifier is also associated with the student’s information (e.g. the group identifier “Family” already includes information regarding the student). Ans. 32 (citing Ozburn ¶ 100); see also id. at 33 (citing Ozburn ¶¶ 96, 97, 100, 381). Appellant argues that “there is no teaching in Ozburn . . . [of] unique identifiers . . . used for anything besides entering data,” and, in particular, no teaching that the entered user data is “needed to receive information.” Appeal Br. 24 (citing Ozburn ¶¶ 98-101). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the name of a parent-user in Ozburn can be a user identifier, as claimed. See Spec. ¶ 11 (disclosing broadly and similarly to claim 1 that a “user identifier” is simply an identifier that “identifies a particular user”). Second, Ozburn teaches: Groups are important because they are the targets of all communications to be issued by the system. . . . The system makes it easy to create groups because the data associated with each person (student, faculty, staff or parent) has already been gathered. One need only choose individuals from lists of persons presented. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 15 Ozburn ¶ 103; see also Ans. 27. Ozburn further discloses: “The system is a repository of information6 about the family, their relationships, how to contact them and groups that need to be informed for various levels of emergencies.” Ozburn ¶ 313. Thus, Ozburn teaches that a parent-user may be chosen to be in a group (i.e., associated with a group identifier) based on entry of the parent’s name (i.e., user identifier), and further, that such unique identifiers (i.e., parents’ names) are not only used to form groups, but are also used as the target of communications issued by the system to members of groups. Appellant also argues that, in Ozburn, “alerts are communicated directly to preselected devices” and “no unique identifier is needed,” such that “Ozburn necessarily does not check a group identifier for a user identifier, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 24-25. However, as discussed supra, first, the parent’s name (i.e., user identifier) is associated with the family (i.e., group identifier), such that in the event of a system communication for the family or group, the system has already based the transmission of the information on the fact that the unique identifier (i.e., parent’s name) of the parent-user is a member of the group-in addition to sending the communication to a device preselected by the parent-user. Appellant further argues that Ozburn fails to disclose the “determining” step, as claimed. Appeal Br. 25-26; see also Reply Br. 13 (“Ozburn only identifies specific (entire) ‘groups that are to receive messages for specific crises situations’”). Appellant concludes that 6 Notably, Ozburn teaches that “family data,” including “[s]tudent [and] parent data,” including relationships, is “loaded into the system database,” or stored on a database, as claimed. Id. ¶ 108; see also id. ¶ 296. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 16 Ozburn results in transmitting information to any user listed in the same group as the student, while the claimed invention only transmits the information to a user who also has a user identifier associated with a group identifier that is the same group identifier as the student information,” . . . [s]o that not all users in a group are targeted for the communication. Reply Br. 13-14. Appellant submits that “[t]he parent in Ozburn is not getting information because of its so-called user identifier, but because the parent/user is in the Family group.” Id. at 15 (citing Ozburn ¶ 103). Appellant further submits that “it is the group identifier for the student information which must be associated with the user, not simply the student.” Id. at 16. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument, because as discussed supra, a parent in Ozburn receives communications because the parent’s name (i.e., user identifier) is associated with the family name as the group identifier. Notably, claim 1 does not exclude all users in a group from receiving critical student information as long as the users have a user identifier associated with the group identifier (i.e., family name) that is also associated with the student information (i.e., student name). Appellant further argues that Ozburn fails to disclose the “‘associating’ steps,” as claimed, because the family group is “simply [a] list[] with names of students and parents,” whereas, “in the claimed invention, the ‘associating step’ has a purpose.” Appeal Br. 26-27. Appellant’s argument, however, does not explain why this step in claim 1 does not read on Ozburn’s method according to the Examiner’s findings set forth supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 17 claims 2, 4-6, 9, 12-15, 18, 19, and 28 apart from the arguments presented for claim 1, and therefore, for essentially the same reasons as stated supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4-6, 9, 12-15, 18, 19, and 28. Appeal Br. 23-29. Dependent claim 3 Claim 3 depends ultimately from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, “wherein the step of storing medical information includes storing vaccination information.” Appeal Br. 36 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Ozburn discloses storing medical information for a student. Final Act. 15 (citing Ozburn ¶¶ 440, 442, Figs. 62, 64). Indeed, Ozburn teaches a “‘Medicines Codes’ dropdown entry in the System Table Maintenance field” that “defines potential medicines taken by students.” Ozburn ¶ 442. The Examiner finds that “entering such information regarding medicines taken also implies vaccination information since vaccination is a medicine-such as a medicine administered to a user via injection, etc.” Final Act. 16. Appellant argues that “Ozburn only discloses ‘potential medicines taken by students,’ which is not the same as vaccination information.” Appeal Br. 30. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because Ozburn’s table provides a listing of medicines that are available for selection depending on the student information being uploaded (i.e., potentially selected for that student) and not medicines that have the potential to be taken in the future by a student. See Ans. 45-46. Further, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that a vaccine is a medicine, for example, a compound or preparation used for the treatment or prevention of a disease. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 18 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3. Dependent claim 16 Claim 16 depends ultimately from independent claim 1, and recites, in relevant part, “wherein the received recipient data includes recipient data for student information[7] communicated via electronic mail, and wherein the received recipient data further indicates whether the electronic mail has been read.” Appeal Br. 37 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Ozburn discloses sending messages by electronic mail, and also finds that “it is understood that messages communicated via e-mails comprise various status information regarding the messages/notifications communications; such as: . . . if the recipient has responded.” Appeal Br. 18-19 (citing, e.g., Ozburn ¶ 29 (disclosing the sending of messages “electronically,” including by “e-mail”)). Appellant argues that “Ozburn does not teach that the data indicates the email is read.” Appeal Br. 30. However, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that it is well known for messages communicated by email to include a receipt acknowledgement as set forth supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16. Dependent claim 17 Claim 17 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, “further comprising the step of: identifying each of the user identifiers, 7 We do not construe the recitation of “student information” in claim 16 as having antecedent basis based on its dependency from claim 15 (reciting “the information”), claim 13 (reciting “information” or “emergency contact information”), claim 12 (reciting “student information” and “emergency contact information”), or claim 1 (reciting “student information” and “critical student information”). Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 19 and identifying a person authorized to provide the student information associated with a plurality of user identifiers with the student information for each of the plurality of students.” Appeal Br. 37-38. The Examiner finds that Ozburn discloses that “a head of a household” is a person authorized to provide the student information (i.e., student names) associated with user identifiers (i.e., parent names) with the student information (i.e., student names). Final Act. 19 (citing Ozburn ¶¶ 296, 297). See also Ans. 48-49 (finding that Ozburn “teach[es] the limitations of claim 17,” and alternatively finding that Ozburn’s “administrator” discloses the claimed “person”). Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner states this claimed recitation is suggested by some teaching in Ozburn,” which is insufficient to state a rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Appeal Br. 31. However, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Ozburn’s teaching or alternative finding. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17. Rejection III Dependent Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from independent claim 1 and recites, in relevant part, the further step of “transferring or uploading to a second database the student information” and “deleting the transferred or uploaded student information from the school database at the first school.” Appeal Br. 36. The Examiner finds that, although Ozburn fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7, the Examiner relies on “Official Notice” that “it is an old and well-known practice in the art, at the time of the invention . . . to transfer user data from a first database to a second database . . . [and] to Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 20 provide memory space by deleting the data stored in the first database.” Final Act. 22. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify Ozburn’s system to provide first and second databases, as claimed, “in order to provide the school with one or more options to improve its efficiency and/or reliability.” Ans. 51. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding “in no way teaches or suggests taking action with respect to a first school and a second school, or at least some of a plurality of students, or to delete the transferred or uploaded student information.” Appeal Br. 33. However, Appellant’s argument does not address the rejection as articulated by the Examiner, which relies on Ozburn’s context of a school. See, e.g., Ozburn ¶ 1 (disclosing “an interactive crisis management alert and information system for notifying . . . particular members of a group within a school”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Dependent claims 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27 Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27 apart from the arguments presented for claim 1 supra, “[a]ltering the summary of claim 1 to fit claim 20.” Appeal Br. 33; see id. at 33-34. Accordingly, for essentially the same reasons as set forth supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 12-21, 23, 24, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 9, 12-19, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed. Appeal 2021-002619 Application 13/472,166 21 The Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9, 12- 21, 23, 24, 27, 28 101 Eligibility 1-7, 9, 12- 21, 23, 24, 27, 28 1-6, 9, 12- 19, 28 102 Ozburn 1-6, 9, 12- 19, 28 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27 103 Ozburn 7, 20, 21, 23, 24, 27 Overall Outcome 1-7, 9, 12- 21, 23, 24, 27, 28 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