Zola, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 11, 202014280970 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 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. 14/280,970 05/19/2014 Shan-Lyn MA 023280-0429601 4000 909 7590 08/11/2020 Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP PO Box 10500 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER CASEY, ALEXIS M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3684 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/11/2020 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): docket_ip@pillsburylaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SHAN-LYN MA, NOBUYUKI NAKAGUCHI, and KEITH TSUI ____________________ Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JAMES B. ARPIN and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22. Claims 10 and 20 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 11–16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm, and we enter a new ground of rejection. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is Zola, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Claims 1 and 9 are illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added): 1. A method for facilitating display of content associated with a plurality of items from a plurality of retailers at a same time on a user interface, the method being implemented in a computing device having one or more physical processors programmed with computer program instructions that, when executed by the one or more physical processors, cause the computing device to perform the method, the method comprising: [A.] receiving, by the computing device, item specification information that identifies the plurality of items to be added to a gift registry of a recipient user, [i.] the plurality of items being added to the gift registry from the plurality of retailers; [B.] receiving, by the computing device, a plurality of electronic addresses associated with the plurality of items, [i.] the plurality of electronic addresses being specified by the recipient user and [ii.] the plurality of electronic addresses linking to web interfaces of the plurality of retailers; [C.] crawling, by the computing device, based on the plurality of electronic addresses, content associated with the plurality of items from the plurality of retailers via the web interfaces of the plurality of retailers; [D.] storing, by the computing device, the crawled content in association with the plurality of items; Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 3 [E.] receiving, by the computing device, one or more delivery parameters specified by the recipient user, [i.] wherein the one or more delivery parameters comprise at least a date used to deliver at least some of the plurality of items; [F.] presenting, by the computing device, on a display, the crawled content associated with the plurality of items from the plurality of retailers at the same time on the user interface; [G.] receiving, by the computing device, a selection of at least a first item from among the presented crawled content and payment information used to pay for the first item; [H.] causing, by the computing device, a payment request for the first item to be processed based on the payment information; [I.] receiving, by the computing device, a payment authorization related to the payment request; and [J.] causing, by the computing device, delivery of the first item to the recipient user to be scheduled based on the one or more delivery parameters responsive to the payment authorization. 9. The method of claim 1, the method further comprising: [K.] generating one or more tracking reports that indicates at least a status of the plurality of items in the gift registry and includes one or more buttons; and [L.] causing an item that was purchased to be fulfilled and/or exchanged in response to a selection of the one or more buttons. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 4 REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on the following references: Name Reference Date Blades US 2009/0254447 A1 Oct. 8, 2009 Argue US 2014/0149238 A1 May 29, 2014 Erez US 2014/0207659 A1 July 14, 2014 REJECTION A. The Examiner rejects claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Erez, Argue, and Blades. Final Act. 3–8. Appellant argues separate patentability for claims 1 and 9. Appellant does not present separate arguments for claims 2–8, 11–19, 21, and 22. We select claims 1 and 9 as the representative claims for this rejection. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 2–8, 11–19, 21, and 22 further herein. B. Although the Examiner withdrew a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 8), we reject infra claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, i.e., the claimed invention is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2 All citations herein to patent or pre-grant publication references are by reference to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 5 OPINION We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments. A. Claim 1 A.1. Appellant raises the following arguments (directed to steps B and C) in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Blades fails to disclose or suggest that the customer specifies such electronic addresses associated with a plurality of items, where the electronic addresses link to web interfaces of a plurality of retailers (from which the items are added to the customer’s gift registry). Blades merely mentions webpages, hyperlinks, and URLs and such mention of webpages, hyperlinks, and URLs does not suggest that the customer specifies hyperlinks and URLs that link to a plurality of retailers, much less the other foregoing limitations of claim[ 1]. Moreover, given that Erez merely teaches a recipient of gift registry items, the combination of Erez and Blades fails to disclose or suggest the foregoing claim limitations. In particular, incorporating Blades’s description of forwarding a customer to a shopping list web page or providing the customer with a hyperlink or URL address to the shopping list web page into Erez’s teachings does not disclose or suggest that the recipient specifies a plurality of electronic addresses, much less that the recipient specifies such electronic address that link to web interfaces of a plurality of retailers in the manner recited in claim[ 1]. Appeal Br. 6–7 (emphasis added). Blades fails to disclose or suggest crawling based on a plurality of electronic addresses specified by a consumer (assuming arguendo that the consumer in Blades can be made to correspond to the claimed “recipient user,” which the Appellant Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 6 does not acquiesce to). In other words, even if Blades describes crawling content based on a URL or hyperlink, Blades fails to disclose or suggest that these URLs or hyperlinks are specified by the consumer, for at least the reasons noted above . . . . Appeal Br. 7–8. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not address the actual findings and reasoning of the Examiner’s rejection. Instead, Appellant attacks each of the Blades reference and the Erez reference singly for lacking a teaching that the Examiner relied on a combination of Blades and Erez to show. In particular, the rejection does not rely on Blades for teaching the “recipient specifies” and “link to web interfaces of a plurality of retailers” (Appeal Br. 7) aspect disputed by Appellant. Rather, the Examiner relied on Erez to show “the plurality of items being specified by the recipient and linking to web interfaces of the plurality of retailers” (Final Act. 4), and relied on Blades to show it was known to use URL addresses and web crawling (Final Act. 5). The Examiner then reasoned that it would have been obvious to modify the gift registry of Erez to include functionality from Blades’ gift registry. Final Act. 11. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (explaining the relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references). Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 7 A.2. Also, Appellant raises the following argument (directed to step C) in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Assuming arguendo that such correspondences can be made, which the Appellant does not acquiesce to, Erez nevertheless fails to disclose or suggest that the delivery constraint 612 (i.e., the delivery date of a notification of the gift to the recipient or the expiration date of the gift) is specified by a recipient user. Instead, Erez describes that the delivery constraint 612 is specified by a buyer of the gift. Erez at [0100]. Further, the Examiner also appears to assert that recipient input shipping address in paragraph [0108] of Erez corresponds to the claimed “one or more delivery parameters.” Office Action at 4. However, such a correspondence is unreasonable because the recipient input shipping address described in paragraph [0108] of Erez does not comprise “at least a date used to deliver at least some of the plurality of items.” Appeal Br. 8–9. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. We note that Erez states: The delivery constraint 612 is where the buyer can input a delivery constraint on the gift transaction. . . . The delivery constraint 612 may also include a delivery date of the notification of the gift to the recipient. Erez ¶ 100. The gift shipment page 1002 includes an interface to input shipping address for the gift. The gift shipment page 1002 allows the recipient to change the shipping/delivery address even if the buyer has specified a shipping address already. Erez ¶ 108. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 8 Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that the Erez teaching of allowing a recipient to change a particular delivery constraint (Erez ¶ 108), is sufficient to teach or suggest that a recipient may change other known delivery constraints such as the delivery date (Erez ¶ 100). B. Claim 9 B.1. Appellant raises the following argument in contending that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The alleged combination fails to disclose or suggest generating one or more tracking reports that indicates at least a status of the plurality of items in the gift registry. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Further, the Examiner alleges that paragraphs [0057] and [0067] of Argue describe generating one or more tracking reports that indicates a status of a plurality of items in a gift registry. Answer at 4, 5. However, Appellant disagrees for at least the following reasons. Argue describes a data store 92 that contains records associated with one or more registries, including one or more recipients, one or more potential gift items, and one or more potential gift givers. Argue at [0057]. Further, Argue describes that an update module enables a recipient to modify potential gifts and add a potential gift giver and enables the update of a gift registry when an item from the gift registry is purchased. Argue at [0067]. However, the mere update of a gift registry or a data store containing records associated with a gift registry does not disclose or suggest generating a tracking report that indicates a status of a plurality of items in a gift registry. In other words, the mere description of updating a gift registry and storing updates in a data store does not disclose or suggest generating a tracking report that indicates a status of a plurality of items in a gift registry. Reply Br. 6 (further emphasis added). Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 9 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument. In describing the update module, Argue states: For example, an update module 100 may remove an item from a list of potential gift items 14 once the item has been purchased by a gift giver 16. Such removal may be accomplished in any suitable manner. For example, in selected embodiments, an update module may delete an item from a corresponding list of potential gift items 14. Alternatively, an update module 100 may change the status of an item once it has been purchased. For example, before an item is purchased, it may have a status indicator reflecting that unpurchased status. Items with such a status may be displayed or otherwise communicated to potential gift givers 16. However, once an item is purchased for a gift registry 10, a status indicator may be changed to reflect that purchased status. Items with such a status may not be display or communicated to potential gift givers 16, thereby lowering the risk of a duplicate gift purchase for a particular recipient 12. An update module 100 may ensure that the registry data view by the various potential gift givers 16 is kept up to date. Argue ¶¶ 67–69 (emphasis added). Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we determine that Argue teaches or suggests generating one or more tracking reports that indicates at least a status of the plurality of items in the gift registry, as required by claim 9. C. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we reject claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 10 is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. C.1. Section 101 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 U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 11 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 12 requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. C.2. USPTO § 101 Guidance In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4 3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). 4 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 13 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. C.3. Appellant’s § 101 Arguments & Panel’s Analysis C.3.a. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 We determine claim 1 recites consolidating gift registry activity by collecting information (gift registry, delivery parameters, payment information), displaying data (provide listing of the plurality of items) analyzing and manipulating data (select data/item, processing payment, scheduling), including the following limitations: [A.] receiving . . . item specification information that identifies the plurality of items to be added to a gift registry of a recipient user, the plurality of items being added to the gift registry from the plurality of retailers; [B.] receiving . . . a plurality of electronic addresses associated with the plurality of items, practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance — Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 14 [i.] the plurality of electronic addresses being specified by the recipient user and [ii.] the plurality of electronic addresses linking to web interfaces of the plurality of retailers; [C.] [collecting] content associated with the plurality of items from the plurality of retailers . . . ; [D.] storing . . . content in association with the plurality of items; [E.] receiving . . . one or more delivery parameters specified by the recipient user, wherein the one or more delivery parameters comprise at least a date used to deliver at least some of the plurality of items; [F.] presenting . . . content associated with the plurality of items from the plurality of retailers at the same time . . .; [G.] receiving . . . a selection of at least a first item from among the presented . . . content and payment information used to pay for the first item; [H.] causing . . . a payment request for the first item to be processed based on the payment information; [I.] receiving . . . a payment authorization related to the payment request; and [J.] causing . . . delivery of the first item to the recipient user to be scheduled based on the one or more delivery parameters responsive to the payment authorization. Claim 1 (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added). We conclude that these limitations of claim 1 recite a series of steps that seek to engage a human user in gift registry, which is a marketing and sales activity (i.e., a commercial interaction); and a commercial interaction is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the abstract idea groupings of the 2019 Revised Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 15 C.3.b. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 Having determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we now turn to whether claim 1 is directed to that abstract idea, or instead integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Beyond the abstract idea discussed above, the only additional limitations are that (a) the method steps of the abstract idea are performed by “a computing device,” (b) a user interface is used in the method steps, and (c) data collecting step C is performed by “crawling.” However, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23. The same is true to the extent that data collection via “crawling” might employ a “machine,” rather than a human mind. The substance of the claim can be performed mentally by a human, and “mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.” Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the Response (March 2, 2018) to the Non-Final Action (Nov. 16, 2017), Appellant argued that “[t]he originally filed Specification describes a problem with gift registries in that a recipient user who wishes to receive gift items from different retailers may be required to create an individual gift registry for each retailer.” Response 11. However, as noted above, we conclude that Appellant’s claim 1 is solving the problem of “consolidating gift registry marketing and sales activities,” which is a business problem and not a technological problem. We do not agree with Appellant that plural gift registry consolidation is either a “technological field” or a “technological problem” or a “technological solution.” Rather, we determine that these are Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 16 directed to a field of business/commerce and its problems and solutions. Appellant’s Response argument is not persuasive. Also, in the Response to the Non-Final Action, Appellant argued that “the present claims improve the buyer’s navigation speed to buy a gift for the recipient user because it saves the buyer from navigating through multiple registries.” Response 11. “But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This is because “the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, we are not persuaded that any additional limitation, alone or in combination, constitutes a technological improvement. We determine that as to claim 1, the claimed invention does not represent a technological improvement in the operation of the claimed system. We conclude that claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. We determine claim 1 does not recite: (i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer; (ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field; (iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine; (iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or (v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 17 See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. C.3.c. 2019 Revised Guidance Step 2B The generic “computing device,” “user interface,” and data collecting via “crawling” in claim 1 also are well-understood, routine, and conventional components and functions. The USPTO has determined that the Specification may support a finding that additional elements are well- understood, routine, and conventional. For example, the Specification expressly discloses the claimed methods and computing devices can be implemented such that “user interfaces may be configured using conventional electronic commerce/shopping techniques used to display items for sale” (Spec. ¶ 68) and “item specification instructions 122 may visit the link to crawl associated content using conventional methods” (Spec. ¶ 60). Emphasis added. Further, mere recitation of a processor or computer alone is insufficient. E.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23. Therefore, claim 1 fails to provide an inventive concept beyond the abstract idea, whether the additional limitations are considered individually or in combination. We determine that in addition to the abstract idea, claim 1 recites only well-understood, routine, conventional elements/functions /combination of elements and/or functions previously known in the industry. We determine that beyond the abstract idea, the claims do not recite: (vi) a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 18 See MPEP § 2106.05(d). C.3.d. Claims 2–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 As to claims 2–9, 11–19, 21, and 22, we conclude that they similarly recite a series of steps that seek to engage a human user in gift registry marketing and sales activities (i.e., commercial interactions); and a commercial interaction is one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For substantially the same reasons discussed above, we do not find that these claims recited additional elements integrating the identified abstract idea into a practical applications or amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. CONCLUSION The Examiner does not err in rejecting claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. We newly reject claims 1–9, 11–19, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter without significantly more. Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 19 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed New Ground 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 103 Erez, Argue, Blades 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 101 Eligibility 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 1–9, 11– 19, 21, 22 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. . . . (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. . . . Appeal 2019-005034 Application 14/280,970 20 Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01. AFFIRMED; 37 C.F.R. 41.50(b) Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation