DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 7 November 2025.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 are pending and have been examined; claim 13 has been cancelled by Applicant.
This action has been made FINAL.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applying the Office's 2019 Guidance on subject matter eligibility, it is respectfully submitted that claims 1-14 are not directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test set forth in MPEP § 2106. Specifically, claims 1-14 are not directed to a mathematical concept, a certain method of organizing human activity, or a mental process. Contrary to the Office's assertion that the claims are directed to a certain methods of organizing human activity, the claims of amended independent claim 1 are not directed to fundamental economic activities. Fundamental economic activities do not take into consideration energy cost for plant operation components which involves the complex problem of taking into account technical plant configuration, which may entail the number of components of the plant, their respective characteristics, co-dependencies in their operation, or the like. None of the enumerated examples of certain methods of organizing human activity take into account such components for a plant, nor their energy consumption which ultimately affects cost”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner notes that minimizing cost and / or maximizing profit is a fundamental economic activity, as it is one of the principals of microeconomics1, and microeconomics would be considered to be a fundamental economic activity. The number or types of factors that are considered when attempting to minimize cost does not make it any less abstract. As stated by the courts, “In defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. “And that 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. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting cases); Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345.” OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Applicant further argues: “Moreover, regardless of whether claims 1-14 are viewed as reciting an exception under Prong One of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is respectfully submitted that clams 1-14 provide a practical application under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test. As set forth in the 2019 Guidance, an element or combination of elements which reflect a technical improvement (e.g., to a computer or other technology) provide that a claim is directed to a practical application. First, contrary to the assertion in the Office Action that the additional elements of the claims are recited at a high-level of generality or do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, the amended claim used in combination with the other elements of the claim provide technical improvements. Specifically, the amended claims recite specific steps for modifying the candidate tariff to obtain a modified candidate tariff by changing a value of a variable that comprises carrying out an optimization problem finding a value for the variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff for which value the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff meet a target criterion while minimizing cost associated with another variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff. This enables the system to execute the optimization problem as a joint optimization problem that finds a parameter, such as flat energy price, to match the original total cost (in contrast to minimizing total cost) while minimizing a power peak parameter for a plant. See published specification, paragraph [0048]”.
Here Applicant states that “the amended claims recite specific steps for modifying the candidate tariff to obtain a modified candidate tariff by changing a value of a variable that comprises carrying out an optimization problem finding a value for the variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff for which value the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff meet a target criterion while minimizing cost associated with another variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff”, however Examiner notes again that this is a business problem, i.e., trying to find the best operational cost for a plant, not a technical problem. The stated solution of “This enables the system to execute the optimization problem as a joint optimization problem that finds a parameter, such as flat energy price, to match the original total cost (in contrast to minimizing total cost) while minimizing a power peak parameter for a plant” is again not a technical solution to a technical problem; it is a business problem, and it uses a mathematical formula, i.e., an optimization problem, to find either the lowest cost for the lowest power peak for a given cost (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure, [0048])2. At no point in the claims does the claimed invention manipulate anything remotely technical or improve any technology. In fact, independent claim 1, for example, does not even recite the use of any technology to carry out the invention.
Applicant further argues “ In any case, considering the claim as a whole (in particular, the additional elements in combination with the features asserted to be directed to an abstract idea, as required by the Office's Guidance), the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application both by enhancing computer functionality and by providing improvements to the technical field of determining candidate tariffs for plant operation optimization while minimizing computational complexity. For example, paragraphs [0038]-[0055] of the published specification describe how the claimed features provide practical applications for determining modified candidate tariffs in an energy consumption aspect for a plant. Thus, the claimed features provide technical improvements to computer functionality by determining an optimal operation strategy, including a grid-supply and usage of an energy storage to minimize overall electrical costs and therefore direct the claims to a practical application”.
“Applicant notes that the consideration of whether the claim as a whole includes an improvement to a computer or to a technological field requires an evaluation of the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification and that the claim reflects that asserted improvement. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l). Applicant submits that when analyzing the claims as a whole they do recite an improvement to computer functionality and a technological field that results in the more accurate modified tariffs in industrial plant systems”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that the only identified additional element in the prior action was the step of receiving data, and Applicant has not pointed out any other additional elements. The claims, as noted above, use no technology to perform the claimed steps, nor do they modify or improve, in any way, something technical.
Applicant argues that “Thus, the claimed features provide technical improvements to computer functionality by determining an optimal operation strategy, including a grid-supply and usage of an energy storage to minimize overall electrical costs and therefore direct the claims to a practical application”, however there is no recitation in the claims of modifying or changing any kind of energy storage. Further, minimizing electrical costs are, again, a business problem, not a technical one.
Applicant further states that the invention provides for an “improvement to computer functionality and a technological field that results in the more accurate modified tariffs in industrial plant systems”, it is noted that ‘tariffs’, as used in Applicant’s disclosure, describe costs or cost structures for energy to power a plant (see, e.g., Applicant’s disclosure, [0042]). It is unclear, therefore, how determining the best cost or pricing strategy for a plant amounts to an improvement to either a computer or any technical field. It is, at best, an improvement to a business problem, e.g., maximizing profits by minimizing costs.
While Applicant’s claimed invention may provide for an improvement to the business problem of reducing costs, Applicant’s arguments nor disclosure appear to provide any evidence of an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to the improvement of a technical field3.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention, when the claims are taken as a whole, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A – 1: The claims recite a Judicial Exception. Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of:
determining optimal operation set points and corresponding operational costs associated with the current tariff based on a current tariff and a technical plant configuration [i.e., initial starting condition];
receiving a candidate tariff that is different from the current tariff [i.e., necessary data collection];
modifying the candidate tariff to obtain a modified candidate tariff by changing a value of a variable of a plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff and determining optimal operation set points and corresponding operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff based on the modified candidate tariff and the technical plant configuration, wherein the modifying of the candidate tariff comprises carrying out an optimization problem finding a value for the variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff for which value the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff meet a target criterion while minimizing cost associated with another variable of the plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff; [i.e., calculation / determination of economic or business parameters];
determining whether the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff meet the target criterion [i.e., comparing results to a target business parameter] ;
when determining that the target criterion is not met, repeating the modifying of the candidate tariff until the target criterion is met [i.e., repeating the calculations until the results match a target business parameter];
when determining that the target criterion is met, providing an output allowing for selecting a new current tariff and for determining corresponding operation set points, wherein the modified candidate tariff for which the target criterion is met is a final modified candidate tariff, wherein the output comprises at least one of: the final modified candidate tariff, the value of the variable associated with the final modified candidate tariff, one or more tariff selection criteria determined based on the final modified candidate tariff and/or the value of the variable associated with the final modified candidate tariff [i.e., outputting the results of the analysis], and
wherein the target criterion is that the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff equal the operational costs associated with the current tariff, or that the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff are within a predetermined range relative to the operational costs associated with the current tariff the range comprising the costs associated with the current tariff and values smaller than the costs associated with the current tariff or the range comp1ising only values smaller than the costs associated with the current tariff, or that the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff are lower than the operational costs associated with the current tariff by a predetermined amount [i.e., describing the target business parameter].
These limitations (bolded and italicized), as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the determination and presentation of an optimal tariff to meet a cost criterion, which is a fundamental economic activity, which falls under the category of certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. Here, the claims are merely collecting information, analyzing said information, and presenting the results of the analysis for the purpose of lowering operational costs4.
Step 2A – 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites the additional limitation of receiving a candidate tariff that is different from the current tariff, however this is mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity, as all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering, and, as such, this limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. This limitation amounts to necessary data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claims do not provide for or recite any improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The dependent claims have the same deficiencies as their parent claims as being directed towards an abstract idea, as the dependent claims merely narrow the scope of their parent claims, and it has been held that “[i]n defining the excluded categories, the Court has ruled that the exclusion applies if a claim involves a natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea, even if the particular natural law or phenomenon or abstract idea at issue is narrow.” (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350. )
Turning to the dependent claims, none of the claimed features of the dependent claims further limit the claimed invention in such a way to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter (e.g. change the scope of the claimed invention as to no longer be directed towards an abstract idea, or include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se), nor do they add limitations that, when taken as a combination, result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
In respect to dependent claims 2 – 12 and 14, they merely further describe or add to the identified abstract idea, and include no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims recite no hardware or the equivalent performing any of the steps.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements, both individually and in combination, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the above identified abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more (e.g. improvements to another technology or technical fields, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment) than the abstract idea itself. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation5.
Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. No. 13–298.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Closest prior art of record includes Hong (U.S. 2016/0291554), which discloses that the [Energy Management System] EMS 110 may model the [schedulable task] ST with reference to the price data and the market demand. That is, the EMS 110 may model in such a manner that an operating point that has high electricity demand is selected and operated when the unit price is low, and an operating point that has low electricity demand is selected and operated when the unit price is relatively high. Accordingly, the EMS 110 may produce intermediate products requiring high electricity consumption in advance when the electricity price is low, and uses the pre-produced intermediate products when the electricity price is high, so that the total energy cost can be reduced. The DR algorithm may be formulated using Mixed Integer Linear Programming (MILP) as shown in FIG. 8. The inputs include the unit prices (day-ahead hourly electricity price), the STN of the production process, operating data of each task (including supported operating points, consumption and production rate of related states, and electricity demand of each operating point), storage information of each state (including the initial storage amount of each state, and lower and upper storage requirements), operating information of the ESS (including energy storage capacity, maximum charging and discharging rate, and charging and discharging efficiency), and operating information of the EGS (including operating range and related cost to generate electricity). (see [0053], [0054], [0059]). Further, Hong discloses that the task modeling unit 615 may perform modeling to select the optimal operating point in the schedulable task so as to produce intermediate products which have high electricity demand in advance when the electricity price is low, and use the pre-produced intermediate products when the electricity price is high (see [0137]). Further, Hong discloses that Case (a) shows the demand with day-ahead hourly electricity prices while case (b) shows the demand with the inclusion of the ESS. During time intervals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, the inclusion of the ESS led to an increase in the demand because the ESS charged when prices were low, whereas the total electricity demands during time intervals 13, 14, 15, and 16 decreased because the ESS discharged when prices were high. Case (c) shows the total electricity demand with hourly electricity prices, the ESS, and the EGSs. The electricity demand was further decreased because the solar EGS generated electricity during time intervals 6 to 18 and the schedulable EGS generated electricity during time intervals 13 to 17. The electricity demand was negative during time intervals 14 to 16, which indicates that the facilities sold surplus electricity to the grid to make a profit. Hourly electricity pricing enabled a reduction in the energy costs by shifting the schedulable tasks (OGS #2, 3, and 4, and WCS #1, 2, and 3) from high-price time intervals to low-price time intervals; the ESS reduced energy costs because it stored electricity when prices were low for use when prices were high; and the EGS reduced energy costs by generating additional electricity with lower cost. [0165] Table 5 shows the total energy cost for different cases (see [0162]-[0164]).
Other close art of record includes Jeon, Hyun Woo, Seokgi Lee, and Chao Wang. "Estimating manufacturing electricity costs by simulating dependence between production parameters." Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 55 (2019): 129-140; Holtewert, Philipp, and Thomas Bauernhansl. "Optimal configuration of manufacturing cells for high flexibility and cost reduction by component substitution." Procedia CIRP 41 (2016): 111-116; Beier, Jan, Sebastian Thiede, and Christoph Herrmann. "Integrating variable renewable electricity supply into manufacturing systems." Eco-factories of the future. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2018. 17-40; Shrouf, Fadi, et al. "Optimizing the production scheduling of a single machine to minimize total energy consumption costs." Journal of Cleaner Production 67 (2014): 197-207; Mitra, Sumit, et al. "Optimal production planning under time-sensitive electricity prices for continuous power-intensive processes." Computers & Chemical Engineering 38 (2012): 171-184;
Hirst; David R. (U.S. 20100198423), directed to and disclosing optimisation of use or provision of a resource or service; Scarpelli, Peter C. (U.S.20020019758), directed to and disclosing a load management dispatch system and methods; Elbsat; Mohammad N. et al. (U.S. 20200193346), directed to and disclosing cost optimization of a central energy facility with block-and-index rate structure; Oe; Ryuji (U.S. 20140031999), directed to and disclosing a power demand plan adjusting device, power demand plan adjusting method and program; and Zhou; Zhi et al. (U.S.20110106328), directed to and disclosing an energy optimization system.
However, with respect to independent claim 1, none of the closest prior art of record, either alone or taken in combination with any other references of record, do not anticipate or render obvious the claimed functionality directed to modifying the candidate tariff to obtain a modified candidate tariff by changing a value of a variable of a plurality of variables characterizing the candidate tariff and determining optimal operation set points and corresponding operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff based on the modified candidate tariff and the technical plant configuration; detennining whether the operational costs associated with the modified candidate tariff meet a target criterion; when determining that the target criterion is not met, repeating the modifying of the candidate tariff until the target criterion is met; when determining that the target criterion is met, providing an output allowing for selecting a new current tariff and for determining corresponding operation set points, wherein the modified candidate tariff for which the target criterion is met is a final modified candidate tariff.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Etzioni; Oren et al. US 20120303412 A1 Price And Model Prediction System And Method
Ghosh; Soumyadip et al. US 20140324532 A1 System And Method For Modeling And Forecasting Cyclical Demand Systems With Dynamic Controls And Dynamic Incentives
Kumar; Sunil et al. US 20130144451 A1 Residential And Commercial Energy Management System
Jones; Vernon Rory et al. US 20130060394 A1 Systems And Methods To Generate Facility Reconfiguration Plans That Can Be Used To Reconfigure Energy Systems Of Facilities To Achieve Financial Objectives
Matthews; Charlotte et al. US 20230418346 A1 Methods, Systems, And Media For Automatic And Continuous Control Of Energy-Consuming Devices
Jacobus, Greg C. et al. US 20040068454 A1 Managing procurement risk
Esposito; William R. et al. US 20080243310 A1 Production control utilizing real time optimization
Schroeder; John P. et al. US 9626634 B2 Industrial plant equipment, process and maintenance optimization
Haynold; Oliver Markus US 10580094 B1 Energy cost optimizer
Sundaram; Senthil Kumar et al. US 9634488 B2 Load scheduling optimization in distributed system
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN S MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5288. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10am-6pm. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 270-6288.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAN S MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20220415173905/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
2 Note Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 599, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (2010), in which the invention recited a pricing formula (Fixed Bill Price = Fi + [(Ci + Ti + LDi) x (α + βE(Wi))]).
3 See, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(a) (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art).
4 See also Electric Power Group v Alstom S.A. No. 2015-1778 (Fed. Cir. 1 August 2016) “Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated 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, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Here, the claims are clearly focused on the combination of those abstract-idea processes. The advance they purport to make is a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for performing those functions. They are therefore directed to an abstract idea”.
5 “Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice, does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”); CLS Bank, Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc) aff’d, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) (“[S]imply appending generic computer functionality to lend speed or efficiency to the performance of an otherwise abstract concept does not meaningfully limit claim scope for purposes of patent eligibility.” (citations omitted))”. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1636 (Fed. Cir. 2015).