Verizon Patent and Licensing Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 10, 20202019005357 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2020) 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. 14/516,253 10/16/2014 Donna L. Polehn 20141073 8006 170054 7590 07/10/2020 VERIZON - AK VERIZON PATENTING GROUP 1300 I STREET NW SUITE 500 EAST WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER FRUNZI, VICTORIA E. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3688 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/10/2020 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): VZPatent170054@verizon.com docket@ak-ip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DONNA L. POLEHN, KENT W. HUGHES, KUMAR SANJEEV, STEVEN R. RADOS, THOMAS W. HAYNES, NITHYA KRISHNASWAMY, and DAVID CHIANG ____________________ Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JUSTIN BUSCH, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s disclosure generally relates to techniques for identifying vehicle information (e.g., license plate numbers or other textual information 1 We use the term Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary companies as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 2 associated with the vehicle) using optical character recognition (OCR) and presenting targeted advertisements on smart billboards based on trends associated with the vehicles and/or users associated with the vehicles. Abstract; see Spec. ¶¶ 18, 19, Fig. 1. More specifically, the claimed subject matter correlates user devices with license plates and presents targeted advertisements based on trends associated with a user device correlated to an identified license plate. Spec. ¶ 18, Fig. 1. Claims 1, 10, and 18 are independent claims, and claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more devices, information regarding a first set of license plates, associated with a first set of vehicles, that have been visually detected by a first set of video input devices that have a field of view that includes a first region, are located within the first region during a first time period; receiving, by the one or more devices, a first set of location information indicating one or more geographical locations at which a first set of user devices have been physically located, the first set of location information having been determined via at least one of: a network-based triangulation technique, or a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique performed by one or more user devices, of the first set of user devices, determining, by the one or more devices and based on the first set of location information, that the first set of user devices are located within the first region during the first time period; receiving, by the one or more devices, information regarding a second set of license plates, associated with a second set of vehicles, that have been visually detected, by the first set of video input devices, as being located within the first region during a second time period; Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 3 receiving, by the one or more devices, a second set of location information indicating one or more geographical locations at which a second set of user devices have been physically located, the second set of location information having been determined via at least one of: a network-based triangulation technique, or a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique performed by one or more user devices, of the second set of user devices, determining, by the one or more devices and based on the second set of location information, that the second set of user devices are located within the first region during the second time period; identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular user device that is present in both the first and second sets of user devices; identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular license plate that is present in both the first and second sets of license plates; correlating, by the one or more devices, the particular user device to the particular license plate by identifying that the particular user device and the particular license plate are present in both the first and second sets of user devices and license plates, respectively; receiving, by the one or more devices, information indicating that the particular license plate has been visually detected, by a second set of video input devices that have a field of view that includes a second region, as being present on a particular vehicle in the second region, wherein a billboard device is within a line of sight of the second region; identifying, by the one or more devices and based on the information indicating that the particular license plate has been visually detected on the particular vehicle in the second region, one or more trends associated with the particular user device that is associated with the particular license plate; Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 4 selecting, by the one or more devices and based on the correlation of the particular user device to the particular license plate, content to display on the billboard device, the content being selected further based at least in part on the one or more trends associated with the particular user device; and outputting, by the one or more devices, an instruction to the billboard device, the instruction causing the billboard device to present the selected content. REJECTIONS Claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 5–15. Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 21–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Scofield (US 2014/0279012 A1; Sept. 18, 2014), Jana (US 2003/0096621 A1; May 22, 2003), Evans (US 2004/0220917 A1; Nov. 4, 2004), and Wasserman (US 9,293,042 B1; Mar. 22, 2016). Final Act. 16–34, 45–50. Claims 2, 5, 9, 11, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman, and Harrison (US 2013/0325629 A1; Dec. 5, 2013). Final Act. 50–55. Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Scofield, Wasserman, and Evans. Final Act. 34–45. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Scofield, Wasserman, Evans, and Outwater (US 2013/0262275 A1; Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 55–57. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 5 ANALYSIS REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 Although Appellant provides separate headings for various claim groups, Appellant substantively argues the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as a group. See Appeal Br. 20–22 (arguing the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper for the reasons presented with respect to claim 1). Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as representative of all pending claims on appeal with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner concludes the claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 5–15. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s rejection, arguing the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the claims are integrated into a practical application, and the claims recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal Br. 14–20; Reply Br. 6–7. If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility, the Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101—i.e., evaluating whether the claim is directed to a judicially recognized exception. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). We also consider the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s revised guidance for applying the Alice framework when evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”); USPTO, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update (Oct. 18, 2019), https://www.uspto.gov/PatentEligibility (“Guidance Update”). Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 6 As part of our inquiry, we “look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (“First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.”). The Guidance breaks this “directed to” inquiry (“Step 2A”) into two prongs of analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) (“Prong 1”), and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (“Prong 2”). Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If we determine the claim is directed to an abstract idea, we then examine “the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an “inventive concept,” “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 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (directing us to consider whether the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry” (“Step 2B”)). Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 7 Guidance Step 2A (The Alice “Directed To” Inquiry) The Examiner characterizes the claims as being directed to “determining an advertisement to display based on collected user information.” Final Act. 5; Ans. 4. The Examiner explains that this idea is similar to ideas the Federal Circuit has found to be abstract, such as “customizing information based on . . . information known about the user.” Final Act. 6 (quoting Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Examiner also determines the claimed subject matter is directed to a certain method of organizing human activity, specifically “commercial or legal interactions (including . . . advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Ans. 4. In general, we agree with the Examiner’s characterization. More specifically, we determine the claims are directed to correlating user devices to license plates and selecting targeted advertisements based on trends associated with the user device in response to detecting the correlated license plate (hereinafter “selecting targeted advertisements”). Therefore, we conclude representative claim 1 is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., advertising, marketing, and sales activities) and, alternatively, mental processes (i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, such as, an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion), which are abstract ideas. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. This is consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed embodiments of the invention. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 18 (“Some implementations, describe[d] herein, may provide a ‘smart’ billboard, which may be used to present targeted ad content . . . selected based on one or more other types of information, such as user information that has been linked to Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 8 vehicle information.”), 20 (“The smart billboard controller may use the license plate information, of the set of vehicles, to select ad content for display on the smart billboard.”), 21 (“The smart billboard controller may identify other types of information associated with the user . . . and may use such information when selecting ad content for display on the smart billboard.”); Title (“PRESENTING SMART BILLBOARD CONTENT BASED ON OPTICAL PATTERN RECOGNITION OF VEHICLE INFORMATION”); see also Appeal Br. 2 (asserting “the claims recite features generally related to selecting and presenting targeted content to present on a ‘smart’ billboard device” (citing Spec. ¶ 18)), 3 (“Information regarding the user device can then be identified and used to select the targeted content to present on the billboard.” (citing Spec. ¶ 21)). Although we describe the abstract idea slightly differently than the Examiner, the Examiner’s characterization of the idea is not erroneous. “An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The level of abstraction an examiner uses to describe an abstract idea need not “impact the patentability analysis.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241. That is true here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the abstract idea recited, the claims recite an abstract idea. Cf. Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Although not as broad as the district court’s abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.”). Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we conclude that selecting targeted advertisements (i.e., gathering known information about a user to identify customized advertisements or recommendations) is an Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 9 abstract idea because it is a certain method of organizing human activity (e.g., a commercial interaction—specifically, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (determining that “[t]his sort of information tailoring is ‘a fundamental . . . practice long prevalent in our system’” (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 219), “newspaper inserts had often been tailored based on information known about the customer,” and “[p]roviding this minimal tailoring . . . is an abstract idea”); Morsa v. Facebook, Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1013 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“[T]argeted advertising is [a well-known] concept, insofar as matching consumers with a given product or service ‘has been practiced as long as markets have been in operation.’” (quoting Tuxis Techs., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV 13-1771-RGA, 2014 WL 4382446, at *5 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2014))), aff’d, 622 F. App’x 915 (Fed. Cir. 2015).2 Finally, under Office guidance, fundamental economic principles or practices and subject matter related to “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations” such as targeted 2 See, e.g., In re Greenstein, 778 F. App’x 935, 936–40 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (providing recommendations over the Internet regarding a purchase or lease of goods or services); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–64 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (offer-based price optimization); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. J. Crew Grp., Inc., No. 6:16-CV-196-JRG, 2016 WL 4591794, at *5–6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2016) (recommending products to customers based on purchase history), aff’d sub nom. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. FTD Companies, Inc., 703 F. App’x 991 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 325, 337–38 (D. Del. 2015) (providing personalized recommendations), aff’d sub nom. Personalized Media Commc’ns, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com Inc., 671 F. App’x 777 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 10 advertising fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of abstract ideas. Guidance Update at 4–6. We thus agree with the Examiner that representative claim 1 recites certain methods of organizing human activity. Alternatively, authorizing a user to purchase content is a mental process that is applied and performed in a computing environment. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”); see also Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding “the collection, storage, and recognition of data” was abstract). We see no meaningful difference between the method recited in claim 1 and other broadly worded methods that courts have determined are directed to mental processes. See, e.g., Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–56; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316–19 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re BRCA1- & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 761–65 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370–77 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Like the method steps in many of these decisions, the method steps in claim 1 are so broadly drawn that they encompass acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper. It is well settled that merely reciting generic computer components performing steps that could otherwise be performed mentally does not change their characterization as mental steps. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 11 Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 (Recite an Abstract Idea) Representative claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim limitations that recite aspects of the advertising activity or mental steps constituting the abstract idea of selecting targeted advertisements, emphasized in italics: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by one or more devices, information regarding a first set of license plates, associated with a first set of vehicles, that have been visually detected by a first set of video input devices that have a field of view that includes a first region, are located within the first region during a first time period; receiving, by the one or more devices, a first set of location information indicating one or more geographical locations at which a first set of user devices have been physically located, the first set of location information having been determined via at least one of: a network-based triangulation technique, or a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique performed by one or more user devices, of the first set of user devices, determining, by the one or more devices and based on the first set of location information, that the first set of user devices are located within the first region during the first time period; receiving, by the one or more devices, information regarding a second set of license plates, associated with a second set of vehicles, that have been visually detected, by the first set of video input devices, as being located within the first region during a second time period; receiving, by the one or more devices, a second set of location information indicating one or more geographical locations at which a second set of user devices have been physically located, the second set of location information having been determined via at least one of: a network-based triangulation technique, or Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 12 a global positioning system (“GPS”) technique performed by one or more user devices, of the second set of user devices, determining, by the one or more devices and based on the second set of location information, that the second set of user devices are located within the first region during the second time period; identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular user device that is present in both the first and second sets of user devices; identifying, by the one or more devices, a particular license plate that is present in both the first and second sets of license plates; correlating, by the one or more devices, the particular user device to the particular license plate by identifying that the particular user device and the particular license plate are present in both the first and second sets of user devices and license plates, respectively; receiving, by the one or more devices, information indicating that the particular license plate has been visually detected, by a second set of video input devices that have a field of view that includes a second region, as being present on a particular vehicle in the second region, wherein a billboard device is within a line of sight of the second region; identifying, by the one or more devices and based on the information indicating that the particular license plate has been visually detected on the particular vehicle in the second region, one or more trends associated with the particular user device that is associated with the particular license plate; selecting, by the one or more devices and based on the correlation of the particular user device to the particular license plate, content to display on the billboard device, the content being selected further based at least in part on the one or more trends associated with the particular user device; and Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 13 outputting, by the one or more devices, an instruction to the billboard device, the instruction causing the billboard device to present the selected content. In other words, the abstract advertising activity or mental process of selecting targeted advertisements comprises analyzing received information to tailor an advertisement to information about a user associated with a detected license plate and, more specifically, (i) determining device locations based on received lists; (ii) identifying a device in both the first and second sets of device data; (iii) identifying a license plate in both the first and second sets of plate data; (iv) correlating the device and the plate based on the device and plate being in both of the respective sets of data; (v) based on detecting the plate, determining trends associated with the device correlated to the plate; and (vi) selecting a target advertisement to display based on the correlation and the determined device trends. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (explaining that certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas include “commercial or legal interactions (including . . . advertising marketing or sales activities or behaviors . . .)”). Each of these steps merely constitute necessary steps of the abstract idea because they all analyze collected user information to select an advertisement targeted to the user. Additionally, at least these same steps recite mental processes comprising aspects of the abstract idea of selecting targeted advertisements. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (describing the mental process category of abstract ideas as including concepts performed in the human mind, such as observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). Identifying elements of data within data sets (determining locations from a data set, identifying plates or devices within multiple data sets), analyzing the data to correlate Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 14 two data elements (i.e., a license plate and a device), and determining trends associated with a device are merely observations and evaluations, and selecting a targeted advertisement based on the data analysis is merely a judgment or opinion. Appellant asserts, without further explanation, that “none of the features of claim 1 are mere ‘methods of organizing human activity . . . [or] mental processes.’” Appeal Br. 14–15. For the reasons stated above, we disagree, and Appellant’s unsupported and unexplained assertion does not persuade us otherwise. See Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318; Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1369; accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14; Guidance Update 9; Final Act. 6 (quoting Amazon.com, 838 F.3d 1266). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas—i.e., mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 (Integrate Into a Practical Application) Because claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we next determine whether it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). Here, we find the additional limitation(s) do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More particularly and contrary to Appellant’s assertions, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 15 functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) using a “particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The additional limitations (i.e., those limitations not included in the recited abstract idea) recite (1) receiving information, specifically regarding (a) license plates detected in a first region at first and second times, (b) user device location information (determined by triangulation or GPS), and (c) information indicating a particular license plate was detected at a second location within line of sight of a billboard, and (2) outputting an instruction causing the billboard to display the selected targeted advertisement. Merely receiving data from or outputting data to an electronic device does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Instead, the claims merely use computers that operate in their normal, expected manner. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Additionally, as the court in Enfish explained, “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted 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). As discussed above, the focus of the pending claims is on selecting targeted advertisements, and the recited computing elements are invoked merely as a tool to apply the abstract idea in a particular environment. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 16 The receiving information and outputting an instruction steps are insignificant extra-solution activity that merely obtain information necessary to perform the abstract idea and outputting the selected content, respectively. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31 (explaining that pre-solution data gathering steps to perform analysis and post-solution activity, such as outputting the results of an abstract idea, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application). Such pre- and post-solution activity does not confer patent eligibility. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at1375 (explaining that data gathering is insignificant extra-solution activity); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978) (adjusting an alarm limit based on output of the abstract idea was insufficient to render the claimed method patent eligible). Even considering the additional elements in combination with the abstract idea, using the generic computer system to perform these steps, at most, limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Appellant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the recited correlation of a plate to a device imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged abstract idea by limiting the claimed subject matter to visually detecting plates and selecting targeted advertisements based on a device correlated to the plate. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant also argues characterizing the additional steps as merely displaying the results of the determination ignores the majority of the claim language relating to how the determination is done, and Appellant contends the Examiner’s analysis fails to consider the claims as a whole. Reply Br. 6–7. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 17 We disagree with Appellant’s contentions because the details regarding how the determination is done involve (1) mere data gathering (receiving information) and (2) the mental processes or elements of the certain methods of organizing human activity that are the abstract idea itself (correlating plates to devices and selecting targeted advertisements). Moreover, even considering the claims as a whole, the additional elements (i.e., (1) data gathering using video cameras and optical character recognition to identify plates and triangulation or GPS to identify devices and (2) outputting the selected targeted advertisement using digital billboards) merely apply the abstract idea (i.e., analyzing the received information and selecting targeted advertisements) using generic devices. The alleged improvement lies in the data analyzed when selecting targeted advertisements. Although the claims may use information not previously used to select targeted advertisements for digital billboards, Appellant has not persuasively demonstrated that the claimed subject matter recites an improvement to the computer itself or another technology because applying different information to select a targeted advertisement merely improves the abstract idea itself. Appellant’s claims are similar to those at issue in Capital One. In Capital One, the Federal Circuit determined that the claims, which customized electronic content based on user information, were directed to abstract ideas. Notably, the Federal Circuit has explained that the addition of computer functionality (such as the video cameras, OCR, and digital billboard technologies in representative claim 1) to abstract concepts does not confer patent eligibility. Capital One, 792 F.3d at 1370. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 18 To the extent Appellant contends the claims do not seek to preempt an abstract idea, see Appeal Br. 15 (arguing claim 1 is not a drafting effort to monopolize the judicial exception), we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. “[W]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362–63 (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). Further, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to abstract ideas. Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept/Significantly More) Because we determine representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea or combination of abstract ideas, we evaluate whether claim 1 includes an inventive concept. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. As stated in the Guidance, many of the considerations to determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework already are considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical application. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of the analysis, we determine whether the claims Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 19 (1) add a specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (2) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Appellant argues the claims include significantly more than the abstract idea because the recited “features of claim 1 are not well- understood, routine, or conventional.” Appeal Br. 15–16. Appellant asserts that identifying the individual devices (i.e., the cameras, billboard, and OCR technique) as generic does not address whether the combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal Br. 16. In particular, Appellant asserts it was “not well-understood or routine for a billboard, camera, and/or mobile phone to correlate a particular user device to a particular license plate” using the technique recited or to select targeted advertisements based on correlating a device to a license plate. Appeal Br. 17–18. Appellant also argues the rejection does not properly support the finding that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Appeal Br. 18–19. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner’s citation to cases demonstrating that sending and receiving information over a network and storing information in a memory does not address the claimed features that recite (1) how content is selected and (2) correlating devices to license plates. Appeal Br. 18–19. Finally, Appellant argues the claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea because the claims recite a technical benefit of using a correlation between a device and a license plate to selected targeted advertisements based on trends associated with the device when detecting the associated license plate Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 20 without needing to use triangulation or GPS in the second region. Appeal Br. 19–20. As explained above, the only additional elements recited in the claims are receiving license plate information and device location information, receiving an indication that a particular license plate was identified in a region near a billboard, and sending an instruction to display the selected targeted advertisement on the billboard. These elements and steps, considered alone and in combination, fail to provide an inventive concept. As the Examiner notes, when describing the devices (i.e., cameras, billboard, user devices) as well as the location (e.g., GPS and triangulation) and OCR technologies, Appellant describes and claims the devices and technologies at a high level of generality. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 34, 85, 86). Although “Appellant does not acquiesce in the Examiner’s summary of Appellant’s Specification,” Appeal Br. 16 n.74, Appellant does not dispute that these elements individually are well-known, routine, and conventional elements. Additionally, our reviewing court has recognized that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d 1350. There is no indication that these elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 21 mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well- understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))). Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum,3 we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claims merely recite generic computer components (e.g., a configured computing system) performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (e.g., obtaining/receiving data, processing data, and presenting the results of the data processing). Spec. ¶¶ 19, 20, 34, 85, 86; See Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324–25 (generic computer components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and [a] ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions 3 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy issued a memorandum titled: Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”) (discussing the Berkheimer decision, Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). Support for a finding that an element was well-understood, routine, or conventional may be shown by citation to one or more court decisions noting the well- understood, routine, conventional nature of the element(s). See Berkheimer Memorandum 3–4. Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 22 required by the method claims.”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”). Accordingly, the Specification provides the requisite evidence to support the Examiner’s findings. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to show that the recited steps (in particular, the recited correlating and selecting steps) are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See Appeal Br. 17–20. But these steps form part of the recited abstract ideas, and the Examiner was not required to show that the abstract ideas are well- understood, routine, and conventional. Although we evaluate the claims as whole for an inventive concept by considering how the additional elements interact with the abstract idea, the inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (explaining that, after determining a claim is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?’” (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218– 19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. . . . It has Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 23 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.” (first emphasis added)); Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 892 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“At Alice step two we assess ‘whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290)). We thus find this argument unpersuasive. For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, and 21–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner rejects: (1) claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, and 21–27 as obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, and Wasserman; (2) claim 18 as obvious in view of Scofield, Evans, and Wasserman; (3) claim 19 as obvious in view of Scofield, Evans, Wasserman, and Outwater; and (4) claims 2, 5, 9, 11, and 14 as obvious in view of Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman, and Harrison. Final Act. 16–57. Of particular relevance to this Appeal, the Examiner finds: (1) Scofield correlates groups of users in order to select a targeted advertisement to display to that group of users, Final Act. 21 (citing Scofield ¶¶ 49, 50, Fig. 5); Ans. 6 (additionally citing Scofield ¶ 28); (2) Jana receives first and second sets of location information, identifies a particular device present in both sets of location information, and identifies a particular license plates in first and second sets of license plates, Final Act. 22–24 (citing Jana ¶¶ 26, 36, 37, 47, 49, 55, 74, 80, 81); Ans. 7–8; (3) Evans Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 24 teaches an “old known mathematical concept of intersection of two set of elements . . . to identify[] . . . a particular user device that is present in both the first and second sets of user devices [and] identify[] . . . a particular license plate that is present in both the first and second set of license plates,” Final Act. 25–26 (citing Evans ¶¶ 2–5, 32–46, Fig. 1); Ans. 7; and (4) Wasserman aggregates various types of information (including vehicle data, such as a detected license plate, and mobile device data) to determine a targeted advertisement to display based on the individual data, vehicle data, and driving data, Final Act. 28 (citing Wasserman 7:15–30, Fig. 4); Ans. 5–6 (additionally citing Wasserman 15:20–50, 7:55–8:10, 8:25–52, 10:60–67, 19:45–20:20). The Examiner finds that, in combination, Scofield, Jana, Evans, and Wasserman teach or suggest the correlating step, which recites correlating a particular license plate to a particular user device by identifying that the particular plate and device are in the first and second sets of plates and devices, respectively. Final Act. 28–29; Ans. 5–7. Appellant argues Wasserman does not correlate a particular user device to a particular license plate and, to the extent Wasserman arguably teaches any correlation between a particular plate and a particular device, Wasserman does not correlate the device and plate as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 23–25. Appellant further asserts the additionally cited references do not cure this deficiency. Appeal Br. 25–26. Scofield relates to selecting targeted advertisements for a travel region based on the individuals likely to see the advertisements. Scofield ¶ 4, Abstract. Scofield “automatically evaluat[es] travel patterns by tracking the routes of particular individuals[] and inferring demographics for such individuals based on the locations of their routes” and “[e]xtrapolating such Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 25 individual demographics [to] enable inference of shared demographics at particular advertisement opportunities” to better target advertisements to those individuals. Scofield, Abstract; see Scofield ¶¶ 4, 5, 21, 50. Scofield may track users either by GPS or other location services using individuals’ mobile devices or by tracking vehicle license plates using cameras employing OCR technology. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 17, 20, 36, 37. Jana relates to tracking multiple mobile users’ movement and identifying users who are engaged in a common “location-based activit[y]” based on the tracked movement. Jana ¶¶ 26, 36–38, 81, Abstract. Jana’s network may “keep a record (registration) of the current location area of each mobile.” Jana ¶¶ 47, 85; see Jana, Fig. 5A. Mobile devices may be tracked using this registration process or using a location sensor (e.g., GPS or triangulation). Jana ¶¶ 48, 49. Evans relates to improved Structure Query Language (SQL) queries and, more specifically, to eliminating unnecessary join statements. Evans, Abstract. A join statement may be used in SQL to allow a user to view a single table comprising data from two different tables, one table having columns that may repeat a value within the table but that refer to elements that are unique in a second table (e.g., an “EMPLOYEE” table may have a “DEPT” column that identifies the department ID that the employee works in and a “DEPARTMENT” table will include one row for each unique department ID and may include a column such as “DESCRIPTION” that lists the textual name of the department). Evans ¶¶ 2–7. Wasserman relates to identifying individual and vehicle information (“vehicle locations, driving routes, driver and passenger characteristics, and the like”) “based on data received from traffic cameras, vehicle-based Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 26 devices, personal mobile devices, and/or other data sources” and, presenting targeted advertisements on digital billboards based on that information. Wasserman, Abstract; see Wasserman 8:11–25, Figs. 2–4. Wasserman’s user may include GPS receivers or other location-based services that may determine vehicle location, speed, direction, etc. Wasserman 7:23–55. Wasserman also may analyze driving patterns and routes and use that information when selecting targeted advertisements. Wasserman 7:56–8:10. Vehicle information “may be based on vehicle identifier information captured by roadside cameras (e.g., a vehicle’s license plate data).” Wasserman 8:26–28. “[D]ata identifying the vehicle’s occupants also may be transmitted by . . . [a] user’s mobile device.” Wasserman 8:46–48. We disagree with Appellant that Wasserman fails to correlate a particular user device with a particular license plate. As noted, Wasserman discloses collecting vehicle identifier information, such as a license plate as well as information from user devices, and Wasserman uses both sets of information to select a targeted advertisement. Wasserman 8:11–28, 8:46– 48, Figs. 2–4. Wasserman at least suggests implicitly correlating the user device from which it receives information with the license plate information. Without this implicit correlation, Wasserman might get certain information associated with individuals in a different vehicle than the vehicle identified by the license plate information. However, we agree with Appellant that Wasserman fails to teach the correlating step as recited. Specifically, Wasserman does not teach correlating “by identifying that the particular user device and the particular license plate are present in both the first and second sets of user devices and license plates, respectively,” as recited in independent claim 1 and Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 27 commensurately recited in independent claims 10 and 18. The Examiner relies on Jana to teach identifying a particular user device present in two sets of user devices (a first set located at a first location at a first time and the second set located at the same location at a second time) and identifying a particular license plate is present in two sets of license plates (a first set detected at the first location at the first time and the second set located at the same location at the second time). See Final Act. 22–24. The Examiner finds Scofield generally teaches correlating users having a shared demographic and Evans teaches joining two SQL tables. See Final Act. 21, 25–26; Scofield ¶¶ 4, 5, 21, 50. However, the Examiner finds Wasserman teaches the specific correlating step as recited in the claims. Final Act. 28. Although the Examiner provides a reason for combining the various teachings, the Examiner fails to explain how the proposed combination results in the limitations as claimed. Specifically, the Examiner does not explain how the combination of Jana’s identification of devices and plates would be combined in order to correlate a particular plate to a particular user device, as recited. Therefore, we agree with Appellant’s contention that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest correlating a particular plate to a particular device in the manner recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 10 and 18. For these reasons, we agree with Appellant and we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejections of independent claims 10 and 18, which recite a commensurate limitation. Nor do we sustain the rejections of the dependent claims because (1) each dependent claim ultimately depends from one of claims 1, 10, and 18 and, therefore, Appeal 2019-005357 Application 14/516,253 28 incorporates the disputed correlating step, and (2) the Examiner does not find any of the additionally cited references cure this deficiency. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References or Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 8–12, 14, 17–19, 21–27 101 Ineligible Subject Matter (Abstract Idea) 1–3, 5, 8– 12, 14, 17– 19, 21–27 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, 17, 21–27 103 Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman 1, 3, 8, 12, 17, 21–27 2, 5, 9, 11, 14 103 Scofield, Jana, Evans, Wasserman, Harrison 2, 5, 9, 11, 14 18 103 Scofield, Evans, Wasserman 18 19 103 Scofield, Evans, Wasserman, Outwater 19 Overall Outcome 1–3, 5, 8– 12, 14, 17– 19, 21–27 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation