Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC (111 F. Supp. 3d 688, 2015)

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia 2015-01-21

Citations

Full opinion text

OPINION AND ORDER

MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed on October 28, 2014 by S & N Communications, Inc., and S & N Locating Services, LLC (collectively “S & N” or “Defendants”). ECF No. 197. In such motion, Defendants contend that the claims of the patents asserted against them by CertusView Technologies, LLC (“CertusView” or “Plaintiff’) are invalid for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The parties’ have filed a joint request for oral argument on this motion. Joint Notice Regarding Oral Argument, ECF No. 228. However, after examining the briefs and the record, the Court determines that oral argument is unnecessary because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented and oral argument would not aid in the decisional process. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); E.D. Va. Loe. R. 7(J). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Locate Operations and the Patents-in-Suit

Plaintiff holds, inter alia, the five related patents, involving “technology for the prevention of damage to underground infrastructure,” see First Am. Compl. ¶ 8, at issue in this action: U.S. Patent No. 8,290,204 (“the '204 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,407,001 (“the '001 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,340,359 (“the '359 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,265,344 (“the '344 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 8,532,341 (“the '341 patent” and, collectively with the '204, '001, '359, and '344 patents, “the patents-in-suit”). “Underground man-made objects, such as utility lines and pipes ... are very susceptible to damage from excavation activities.” '001 patent at 1:18-20. Accordingly, local and federal regulations require persons who wish to excavate land to notify owners of underground facilities in the area in which such excavators wish to dig, the “dig area,” prior to excavation. See id. at 1:20-23; '204 patent at 1:29-31. The underground facility owners must then determine whether they own or operate any underground facilities at the identified dig area. '204 patent at 1:31-33. To ascertain whether underground facilities are present at a dig area, facility owners must conduct a “locate operation.” See id. at 1:33-39, 47-50. A “locate operation” is “the application of paint, flags, or some other marking object or material to indicate the presence of an underground facility.” Joint Claim Constr. Chart at 2, ECF No. 101-2. A person performing a locate operation is a “locate technician.” Id.

To conduct locate operations, underground facility owners may use in-house locate technicians or may hire “independent contract locating firms” to perform locate operations on their behalf. '204 patent at 1:53-55. Before conducting a locate operation, the locate technician receives a “locate ticket,” that is, “the set of instructions necessary for a locate technician to perform a locate operation.” Opinion and Order at 64, ECF No. 121; see '204 patent at 1:57-59. Such locate ticket may include “the address or description of the dig area to be marked, the day and/or time that the dig area is to be marked, and/or whether the user is to mark the dig area for telecommunications (e.g., telephone and/or cable television), power, gas, water, sewer, or some other underground facility.” '204 patent at 1:59-64. At the dig area, the locate technician uses a “locate wand,” a device that “use[s] a number of electronic methods to detect the presence of underground facilities,” to determine whether underground facilities are present. Id. at 1:33-37. The locate technician then marks, “using paint or some other physical marking system, such as flags,” the “[l]ocation of those underground facilities, if any, which exist in the dig area.” Id. at 1:37-39. “Paint is generally applied as a sequence of dashes or dots on the surface ... directly above the underground facility and is color-coded to indicate to the excavator the type ... of the underground facility present.” Id. at 1:39-44. Similarly, flags identifying the underground facility “can be placed in the ground directly above the underground facility being marked.” Id. at 1:44^17. A locate technician dispenses “paint and/or flags ... using various devices.” Id. at 1:47-48. However, paint “is typically applied' using a paint marking tool.” '001 patent at 1:30-31. Such paint, flags, or other marking objects resulting from a locate operation are referred to as “locate marks.” '204 patent at 1:50-52.

“It is generally recommended, -or in some jurisdictions required, to document the type and number of underground facilities located, i.e. telephone, power, gas ... etc., and the approximate geographic location of the locate marks.” Id. at 1:65-67, 2:1. “Often times[,] it is also recommended or required to document the distance, or ‘offset[,]’ of the locate marks from environmental landmarks that exist at the dig area,” such as trees, curbs, driveways, pedestals, and building structures, because such offsets “serve as evidence supporting the location of the locate marks after those locate marks may have been disturbed by the excavation process.” Id. at 2:2-16.

The documentation containing “some or all of the information regarding a locate operation is often called a ‘manifest.’ ” Id. at 2:17-18. “Currently, locate marks are generally documented using a sketching process which results in the creation of a paper manifest.” Id. at 2:39^11.

A manifest may typically contain a variety of information related to a locate operation including a sketch or drawing of the dig area that identifies the approximate location of the locate marks and environmental landmarks present at the dig area; the time and date the locate operation was performed; identification of the entity and the locate technician performing the locate operation; the entity requesting the locate operation; the geographic address of the dig area; the type of markings used for the locate operation (e.g., colored paint, flags, or other markers); notes from the locate technician; and/or a technician signature.

Id. at 2:18-29. Generally, if an in-house employee conducts the locate operation, the facility owner/operator will only document on the manifest “the existence of its underground facilities and the approximate location of its locate marks.” Id. at 2:30-33. However, if multiple underground facility owners hire an independent contract locating firm to conduct the locate operation, such firm “may document on the manifest some or all of the underground facilities at the dig area that it located and the approximate location of all the locate marks.” Id. at 2:33-38. Manifests “are stored manually or in some jurisdictions are digitally scanned/photographed and the image stored electronically.” Id. at 2:43-45.

However, the locate operation process described above contains flaws. The sketching process that is generally used to document locate marks, through the creation of a paper manifest, can be problematic because “[sjketches are produced by hand, are not to scale, prone to human error, and costly in drafting time spent by the locate technician.” Id. at 2:39-43. “Inaccurate markings of the utility lines can result in physical damage to utility lines, property damage, and/or personal injury during the excavation process that, in turn, can expose the utility line owner or contractor to significant legal liability.” '001 patent at 1:34-37. In addition, locate operation documentation is suboptimal as manifests “are not easily interrogated for data in any mechanized way” “because the manifests are stored as paper or digital images.” Id. at 2:45-47. According to Plaintiff, the inventors of the patents-in-suit “appreciated the need for new methods and systems to increase the accuracy and reliability of sketches.” Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 4, ECF No. 207. Thus, the technology claimed in the patents-in-suit purportedly solves some of the problems that locate technicians encountered in documenting locate operations.

1. The '204 Patent

The '204 patent is titled “Searchable Electronic Records of Underground Facility Locate Marking Operations.” '204 patent at 1:1-3. In brief, the specification indicates that the '204 patent is “directed to methods, apparatus and systems for creating a searchable electronic record, or ‘electronic manifest,’ relating to a geographic area including a dig area to be excavated or otherwise disturbed,” id. at 2:51-55, with part of such electronic record to include “the geographic location of one or more physical locate marks, applied to the dig area during a locate operation ... somehow identified with respect to its immediate surroundings in the geographic area.” Plaintiff has asserted that Defendants infringed Claims 1, 2, 19, and 21 of the '204 patent. See PL’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n. 1, ECF No. 213.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants infringed three of the method claims of the '204 patent, Claims 1, 2, and 19. Claim 1, an independent method claim, recites:

A method for generating a searchable electronic record of a locate operation performed by a locate technician in a dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area is planned to be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities, the method comprising:

A) electronically receiving source data representing at least one input image of a geographic area comprising the dig area;

B) processing the source data so as to display at least a portion of the at least one input image on a display device;

C) adding to the displayed at least one input image at least one digital representation of at least one physical locate mark so as to generate a marked-up image including the at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark, the at least one physical locate mark applied to ground in the dig area by the locate technician during a locate operation comprising identifying, using the at least one physical locate mark, a presence or an absence of at least one underground facility within the dig area; and

D) electronically transmitting and/or electronically storing information relating to the marked-up image information relating to the marked-up image so as to generate the searchable electronic record of the locate operation.

Id. at 34:52-67, 35:1-9. Claim 2 is dependent upon Claim 1 and recites: “The method of Claim 1, wherein C) comprises: adding, via a user input device associated with the display device, the at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark to the displayed at .least one input image, so as to generate the marked-up image.” Id. at 35:10-14. Claim 19 is dependent upon Claim 17, which, in turn, depends on Claim 1. Claim 19 recites: “The method of claim 17, wherein the at least one photographic image comprises one or more of a topographical image, a satellite image, and an aerial image.” Id. at 36:4-6. Claim 17 recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one input image comprises at least one photographic image.” Id. at 35:66-67.

In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants infringed one apparatus claim in the '204 patent, Claim 21. Claim 21, an independent apparatus claim, recites:

An apparatus for facilitating generation of a searchable electronic record of a locate operation performed by a locate technician in a dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area is planned to be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities, the apparatus comprising:

a communication interface;

a display device;

a memory to store processor-executable instructions; and a processing unit coupled to the communication interface, the display device, and the memory, wherein upon execution of the processor-executable instructions by the processing unit, the processing unit: controls the communication interface to electronically receive source data representing at least one input image of a geographic area including the dig area;

processes the source data and controls the display device so as to display at least a portion of the at least one input image;

adds to the displayed at least one input image at least one digital representation of at least one physical locate mark so as to generate a marked-up image including the at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark, the at least one physical locate mark applied to ground in the dig area by the locate technician during a locate operation comprising identifying, using the at least one physical locate mark, a presence or an absence of at least one underground facility within the dig area; and

further controls the communication interface and/or the memory to electronically transmit and/or electronically store information relating to the marked-up image so as to generate the searchable electronic record of the locate operation.

Id. at 36:35-67.

2. The '344 Patent

The '344 Patent is titled “Electronic Manifest of Underground Facility Locate Operation.” '344 patent at 1:1-3. Such patent is directed to methods and apparatus for generating a searchable electronic record of a locate operation. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have infringed two apparatus claims of such patent, Claims 1 and 4, as well as two method claims of such patent, Claims 13 and 17. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n.l. Claim 1, an independent apparatus claim, recites:

An apparatus for facilitating generation of a searchable electronic record of a locate operation performed by a locate technician in response to a locate ticket and in advance of planned excavation activities at a dig area identified by the locate ticket, the apparatus comprising:

a communication interface; a display device;

a memory to store processor-executable instructions; and a processing unit coupled to the communication interface, the display device, and the memory, wherein upon execution of the processor-executable instructions by the processing unit, the processing unit:

controls the communication interface to electronically receive: ticket information derived from the locate ticket, the ticket information including geographic information identifying the dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area may be excavated or disturbed during the planned excavation activities; and

an image of a geographic area including the dig area; controls the display device to display at least a portion of the received image;

combines the electronically received image with image-related information so as to generate the searchable electronic record, the image-related information comprising: a geographic location associated with the dig area;

a timestamp indicative of when the locate operation occurred, the locate operation comprising identifying, in advance of the planned excavation activities and using at least one physical locate mark applied to ground, pavement or other surface by the locate technician during the locate operation,

a presence or an absence of the at least one underground facility within the dig area identified by the ticket information; and at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locáte mark applied to the ground, pavement or other surface by the locate technician during the locate operation; and

controls the communication interface and/or the memory to electronically transmit and/or electronically store the searchable electronic record of the locate operation so that performance of the locate operation is verifiable.

Id. at 17:40-67, 18:1-19. Claim 4 is an apparatus claim dependent upon Claim 1. Claim 4 recites: “The apparatus of [C]laim 1, wherein the image comprises an aerial image.” Id. at 18:26-27. Claim 13 is an independent method claim that recites:

A method for generating a searchable electronic record, of a locate operation performed by a locate technician in response to a locate ticket and in advance of planned excavation activities at a dig area identified by the locate ticket, the method comprising:

A) electronically receiving:

Al) ticket information derived from the locate ticket, the ticket information including geographic information identifying the dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area may be excavated or disturbed during the planned excavation activities; and

A2) an image of a geographic area comprising the dig area;

B) combining the electronically received image with image-related information so as to generate the searchable electronic record, the image-related information comprising:

a geographic location associated with the dig area;

a timestamp indicative of when the locate operation occurred, the locate operation comprising identifying, in advance of the planned' excavation activities and using at least one physical locate mark applied to ground, pavement or other surface by the locate technician during the locate operation, a presence or an absence of the at least one underground facility within the dig area identified by the ticket information; and at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark applied to ground, pavement or other surface by the locate technician during the locate operation; and

C) electronically transmitting and/or electronically storing the searchable electronic record of a locate operation so that performance of the location operation is verifiable.

Id. at 18:55-67, 19:1-21. Claim 17 is a method claim, dependent on Claim 13, that recites: “The method of claim 13, wherein the image comprises an aerial image.” Id. at 19:30-31.

3. The '359 Patent

The '359 patent is titled “Electronic Manifest of Underground Facility Locate Marks.” '359 patent at 1:1-2. Such patent claims methods and apparatus for generating a searchable electronic record of a locate operation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringed one method claim of the '359 patent, Claim 1. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n.l. Claim 1, an independent method claim, recites:

A method for generating a searchable electronic record of a locate operation performed by a locate technician, the locate operation comprising identifying, using at least one physical locate mark, a presence or an absence of at least one underground facility within a dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area may be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities, the method comprising:

A) electronically receiving an aerial image of a geographic area comprising the dig area, at least a portion of the received aerial image being displayed on a display device;

B) adding to the displayed aerial image at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark, applied to ground, pavement or other surface by the locate technician during the locate operation, so as to generate a marked-up digital image including the at least one digital representation of the at least one physical locate mark; and

C)electronically transmitting and/or electronically storing the searchable electronic record of the locate operation, wherein the searchable electronic record comprises the marked-up digital image and a data set, and wherein the data set comprises:

a set of geographic points along a marking path of the at least one underground facility, the set of geographic points including geographical coordinates corresponding to the at least one physical locate mark; a property address associated with the at least one physical locate mark;

a timestamp indicative of when the locate operation occurred; a name of the locate technician; a name of a company responsible for performing the locate operation; and

a ticket number associated with the locate operation.

Id. at 17:53-67,18:1-21.

4. The '341 Patent

The '341 patent is titled “Electronically Documenting Locate Operations for Underground Utilities.” '341 patent at 1:1-3. The specification indicates that it is directed “to methods, apparatus and systems for creating a searchable electronic record, or ‘electronic manifest,’ relating to a geographic area including a dig area to be excavated or otherwise disturbed,” with such electronic manifest including “the geographic location of one or more physical locate marks, applied to the dig area during a locate operation.Id. at 2:61-67. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have infringed five claims of such patent, Claims 1, 7, 16, 17, and 28. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n.l. Claim 1 is an independent method claim that recites:

A method, comprising:

A) performing a locate operation of at least one underground facility in a dig area that is planned to be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities by applying to ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area at least one physical colored marker to indicate a presence or an absence of the at least one underground facility below the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area;

B) displaying on a display device at least one digital image of a geographic area comprising the dig area;

C) adding to the displayed digital image at least one electronic colored marker corresponding to the at least one physical colored marker applied to the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area so as to generate a marked-up image including the at least one electronic colored marker; and

D) electronically transmitting and/or electronically storing information relating to the marked-up image to document the locate operation performed in A).

Id. at 34:61-67, 35:1-15. Claim 7 is dependent on Claim 1 and recites:

The method of claim 1, wherein B) comprises:

Bl) electronically receiving ticket information derived from a locate request ticket, the locate request ticket specifying the dig area and requesting performance of the locate operation; and

B2) selecting the at least one digital image for display on the display device based at least in part on the ticket information received in Bl).

Id. at 35:46-53. Claim 16 is an independent computer-readable medium claim that recites:

A computer-readable storage device encoded with instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, perform a method comprising:

A) documenting a performance of a locate operation of at least one underground facility in a dig area that is planned to be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities, the locate operation comprising applying to ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area at least one physical colored marker to indicate a presence or an absence of the at least one underground facility below the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area, wherein A) comprises:

B) displaying on a display device at least one digital image of a geographic area comprising the dig area;

C) adding to the displayed digital image at least one electronic colored marker corresponding to the at least one physical colored marker applied to the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area so as to generate a marked-up image including the at least one electronic colored marker; and

D) electronically transmitting and/or electronically storing information relating to the marked-up image.

Id. at 36:36-57. Claim 17 is also an independent apparatus claim and it recites:

An apparatus comprising:

a communication interface;

a display device;

a user input device;

a memory to store processor-executable instructions; and

a processing unit coupled to the communication interface, the display device, the user input device, and the memory, wherein upon execution of the processor-executable instructions by the processing unit, the processing unit:

A) documents a performance of a locate operation of at least one underground facility in a dig area that is planned to be excavated or disturbed during excavation activities, the locate operation comprising applying to ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area at least one physical colored marker to indicate a presence or an absence of the at least one underground facility below the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area, wherein in A), the processing unit:

B) displays on the display device at least one digital image of a geographic area comprising the dig area;

C) adds to the displayed digital image at least one electronic colored marker corresponding to the at least one physical colored marker applied to the ground, pavement or other surface in the dig area so as to generate a marked-up image including the at least one electronic colored marker; and

D) electronically transmits and/or electronically stores information relating to the marked-up image.

Id. at 36:58-67, 37:1-20. Claim 28 is dependent on Claim 17 and it recites: “The apparatus of claim 17, wherein in D), the information relating to the marked-up image includes at least one timestamp indicative of a date and/or a time at which the locate operation is performed in A).” Id. at 38:47-50.

5. The '001 Patent

The '001 patent is titled “Systems and Methods for Using Location Data to Electronically Display Dispensing of Markers by a Marking System or Marking Tool.” '001 patent at 1:1-4. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have infringed Claim 1 of such patent. See Pl.’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n. 1. Claim 1 is an independent system claim that recites:

A system for electronically displaying information relating to use of a marking system or a marking tool configured to dispense one or more markers to mark, on ground, pavement, or other surface, a location of an underground utility, the system comprising:

a processor to receive location data relating to the use of the marking system or the marking tool; and a display device communicatively coupled to the processor,

wherein the processor uses the location data to control the display device so as to visually display a dispensing of the one or more markers that mark the location of the underground utility on an electronic representation of an area that is marked and includes the location of the underground utility.

Id. at 8:14-28.

B. Procedural History

On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed an action in this Court alleging that Defendants “have infringed, and continue to infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents,” four of the five patents-in-suit “by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling devices and/or services covered by the claims of the [patents] and by actively and intentionally inducing others to infringe one or more claims of the [patents].” Compl. ¶¶ 14, 18, 22, 26, ECF No. 1. On- December 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging infringement of all five patents-in-suit. See Ana. Conapl. ¶¶ 15, 19, 23, 27, 32, ECF No. 55. On December 23, 2013, Defendants filed an Answer denying Plaintiffs allegations of infringement. Defs.’ Answer at 6-10, ECF No. 61. Defendants deny any infringement, including induced or contributory, and allege various affirmative defenses, including the invalidity of the patents-in-suit. Id. at 11-12. Defendants also assert counterclaims against Plaintiff, seeking “declaratory judgment[s] of non-infringement ... [and] invalidity” with regard to all five patents-in-suit. Id. at 15-20.

On April 1, 2014, the Court held a Mark-man hearing and heard argument from the parties concerning ten disputed claim terms. On May 16, 2014, the Court issued a claim construction Opinion and Order (“Markman Opinion and Order”) construing such disputed claim terms. ECF No. 121. The Court determined that the following six disputed terms required no construction and should be accorded their plain and ordinary meaning: “generate/generating/generation of the searchable electronic record;” “processor/processing unit;” “display device;” “communication interface and/or the memory;” “electronically transmitting/transmit and/or electronically storing/store;” and “marking system or a marking tool.” Markman Opinion and Order at 21, 28, 33, 37, 40, 68. The Court construed the remaining four disputed claim terms as follows:

“location data” — “data that identifies a geographic location;”

“information relating to the marked-up image” — “non-image data relating generally to a locate operation;”

“searchable electronic record of a locate operation” — “one or more computer-readable files that include some or all of the information regarding a locate operation;” and

“locate [request] ticket” — “the set of instructions necessary for a locate technician to perform a locate operation.”

Id. at 44, 49-50, 58, 63-64.

On August 28, 2014, Defendants moved for an order requiring Plaintiff to limit the number of claims it has asserted against Defendants. Defs.’ Renewed Mot. to Limit Number of Asserted Claims, ECF No. 140. On October 1, 2014, the Court granted, in part, Defendants’ motion to limit claims and ordered Plaintiff to elect fifteen representative claims from the sixty-eight claims Plaintiff originally had asserted against Defendants. See Opinion and Order, ECF No. 159. Accordingly, Plaintiff has now reduced the number of patent claims asserted against Defendants to those stated above with respect to each of the patents-in-suit. PL’s Mem. Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. at 5 n. 1; Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 2 & n. 1, ECF No. 198. In addition, the Court ordered Defendants to elect a maximum of twenty-five prior art references to assert against Plaintiff. Opinion and Order, ECF No. 159.

On October 28, 2014, Defendants filed the instant motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 197. In support of such motion, Defendants contend that the patents-in-suit are invalid because they do not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Defs.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 8. According to Defendants, under the two-step test governing whether a patent impermissibly claims an abstract idea, set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014), Plaintiffs patents are invalid because they attempt to claim an abstract idea and do not transform such idea into a patent-eligible invention. See id. at 11, 14. Under the first step, Defendants contend the patents-in-suit do not claim patentable subject matter because they merely purport to claim the abstract idea of “recording a locate operation.” Id. at 11. Under the second step, in Defendants’ view, the “generic hardware components” recited in the claims of the patents-in-suit do not transform the abstract idea of recording a locate operation into patent-eligible subject matter. Id. at 14. Additionally, in their brief, Defendants compare “an exemplary, asserted method claim,” Claim 1 of the '204 patent, to an alleged “conventional method of recording a locate operation” to demonstrate that such claim “does nothing more than add computerized terms ... to the conventional practice of recording a locate operation.” Id. at 3-4.

On November 13, 2014, CertusView filed its brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. ECF No. 207. Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. Regarding procedure, Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ motion improperly relies on material outside the pleadings, especially in describing a “conventional” locate operation. Pl.’s Opp’n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 3. As corollaries to its contention that Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is, in reality, a motion for summary judgment in disguise, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants’ motion must fail because it lacks the factual support requisite for the Court to grant summary judgment to S & N and also constitutes an impermissible second motion for summary judgment in addition to Defendants’ currently pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 216, under this Court’s local rules. See id. at 16-17.

Regarding substance, Plaintiff begins by arguing that Defendants have failed to carry their burden of establishing the invalidity of the patents-in-suit by clear and convincing evidence because they have not provided a claim-by-claim analysis of the validity vel non of the patents-in-suit. Id. at 18. Next, CertusView contends that the patents-in-suit are patentable under the first part of the Alice test because they are not directed to the abstract idea of “recording a locate operation.” Id. at 19-20. In Plaintiffs view, recording a locate operation is not an abstract idea because recording a locate operations is, “necessarily, a real world operation” because the “patents do not describe any method for doing that automatically.” Id. at 20. Also, Plaintiff underscores that the “application of paint, flags, or some other marking object or material to indicate the presence of an underground facility” is “a concrete process performed by a real person, in the real world.” Id. at 19. As a further indication that the patents-in-suit do not attempt to claim an abstract idea, Plaintiff contends that the claims in the patents-in-suit do not preempt recording locate operations. Id. at 20-21. According to Plaintiff, the fact that the claims at issue “concern the performance of real world steps” indicates that the patents are not directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 21.

With respect to the second prong of Alice, CertusView contends that its patents are directed to patent-eligible subject matter because they are transformative. Plaintiff argues that “the use of an image or representation of a dig area is transformative” as an “inventive contribution” over the prior art, rather than merely a recitation of the conventional methods used to conduct locating operations. Id. at 22-23. Plaintiff also contends that, taken together, all the claim elements in each patent are patent-eligible because they provide a new and useful process in combination. Id. at 24. Moreover, according to Plaintiff, the patents-in-suit involve computerized components that “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly” because “no prior art systems contemplated the inventions of the asserted patents” and “it was necessary to include computerized elements” “to complete the invention that would allow locate technicians the ability to rely on an image or other electronic representations of a dig area when preparing a sketch or manifest.” Id. at 24. Finally, CertusView asserts that courts which have invalidated patents that claimed abstract ideas have done so with respect to patents directed “to extremely broad and high-level concepts that presented a significant risk of preemption— unlike the situation here.” Id. at 25.

On November 20, 2014, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion. ECF No. 221. S & N’s reply addresses both Certusview’s procedural and substantive challenges to S & N’s motion. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) governs motions for judgment on the pleadings. Such Rule provides: “[a]fter the pleadings are closed — but early enough not to delay trial — a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has noted:

The standard for Rule 12(c) motions is the same as applied to Rule 12(b)(6) motions, which should only be granted if, “accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiffs complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiffs favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.”

Priority Auto Grp., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 757 F.3d 137, 139 (4th Cir.2014) (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir.1999)). “A Rule 12(c) motion tests only the sufficiency of the complaint and does not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs claims or any disputes of fact.” Drager v. PLIVA USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir.2014) (citing Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 752 (4th Cir.2012)).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d), “[i]f on motion under 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56.” A court has the discretion to either accept materials beyond the pleadings in considering a Rule 12(c) motion, thereby converting such motion into a motion for summary judgment, or to reject such materials and not consider them. See 2 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 12.34[3][a] (3d ed.2014); 5C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1366 (3d ed. 2004 & Supp.2014). However, though a court may not consider matters outside the pleadings without converting a Rule 12(c) motion into a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56, “[a] copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c).

III. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs patent infringement claims because Plaintiffs patents are invalid for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In response, Plaintiff has opposed Defendants’ motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. Accordingly, first, the Court will consider Plaintiffs procedural challenges to determine whether it can reach the merits of Defendants’ motion. As discussed below, the Court finds Plaintiffs procedural arguments unavailing. Therefore, the Court will then analyze the substance of Defendants’ motion.

A. Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, the Court must consider whether Defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion is a procedurally appropriate vehicle to attack the validity of Plaintiffs patents. The crux of Plaintiffs procedural challenge to Defendants’ motion is that such motion improperly relies on material outside the pleadings and, therefore, must be considered a motion for summary judgment. According to Plaintiff, as a summary judgment motion, Defendants’ motion cannot be decided on the pleadings. Additionally, in Plaintiffs view, given that such motion is a motion for summary judgment, Defendants’ motion must fail because it lacks sufficient factual support.

As the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has recognized, “[sjection 101 patent eligibility is a question of law....” In re Roslin Inst. (Edinburgh), 750 F.3d 1333, 1335 (Fed.Cir.2014) (citing Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1273 (Fed.Cir.2012)). Nevertheless, “that legal conclusion ‘may contain underlying factual issues.’” Loyalty Conversion Sys. Corp. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 66 F.Supp.3d 829, 834 (E.D.Tex.2014) (Bryson, Cir. J.) (quoting Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1341 (Fed.Cir.2013)). Thus, as a general matter, given that patent eligibility under section 101 is a question of law, the Court can resolve such issue on the pleadings, if the eligibility of the subject matter of the patents-in-suit does not involve an underlying factual dispute. Indeed, numerous courts have resolved whether a patent claims patent-eligible subject matter on a defendant’s Rule 12(c) motion. See, e.g., buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2014); Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 56 F.Supp.3d 813, 815-16 (E.D.Va.2014); Loyalty Conversion, 66 F.Supp.3d at 835. That said, the Federal Circuit has indicated that, although “claim construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101,” “it will ordinarily be desirable — and often necessary — to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273-74.

Contrary to Plaintiffs contention, the Court finds that it is appropriate at this juncture of the proceedings for the Court to ascertain, based solely on the pleadings, whether the patents-in-suit claim patent-eligible subject matter. Section 101 eligibility is a question of law, Roslin Inst., 750 F.3d at 1335, that hinges on the claims of the patents-in-suit, see Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (indicating that the Court’s section 101 analysis involves two steps, both of which require a consideration of the patent claims at issue). Here, Plaintiff has attached the specifications of the patents-in-suit as exhibits to the First Amended Complaint and, therefore, pursuant to Rule 10(c), the Court may consider such specifications in resolving this Rule 12(c) motion. Accordingly, to resolve the claim-centric issue of section 101 validity, the Court finds that it need not rely on any factual matter other than that presented in the specifications of the patents-in-suit themselves. Moreover, the Court already has resolved the parties’ claim construction disputes through its Markman Opinion and Order and now has a “full understanding of the basic character of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1273-74; see also Loyalty Conversion, 66 F.Supp.3d at 835. Therefore, for those reasons, the Court rejects Plaintiffs contention that the Court cannot resolve this motion on the pleadings.

Importantly, the Court further concludes that there are no factual disputes that could affect the Court’s analysis of the issue of section 101 validity. The only factual dispute that Plaintiff has brought to the Court’s attention in opposition to Defendants’ motion concerns Defendants’ characterization of a “conventional” locate operation, including Defendants’ chart comparing such an operation to Claim 1 of the '204 patent. See Pl.’s Opp’n to Motion for J. on the Pleadings at 15. However, the Court need not resolve the factual dispute between the parties over how locate technicians conduct “conventional” locate operations because that dispute does not affect the Court’s conclusion that the patents-in-suit do not claim patent-eligible subject matter. Therefore, the Court will decline to exercise its discretion to consider matters outside the pleadings in resolving this Rule 12(c) motion. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(d). The Court finds that such decision is appropriate because the issue of section 101 validity is adequately presented — and the Court can adequately resolve it — without considering the disputed facts outside the pleadings. To the extent that Defendants’ briefs rely on factual information outside the pleadings, including the chart contained in Defendant’s memorandum in support of its motion, the Court will not consider such materials in resolving this motion. Rather, to the extent the Court considers the matter at all, the Court will view the facts regarding such “conventional” locate operations in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff based on the facts presented in Plaintiffs pleadings and the specifications of the patents-in-suit that Plaintiff has incorporated therein. Accordingly, given the absence of any other factual dispute that could affect this Court’s ruling, the Court concludes that it is appropriate to resolve the issue of section 101 validity under Rule 12(c). See, e.g., Loyalty Conversion, 66 F.Supp.3d at 834-35.

B. The Validity of the Patents-in-Suit

Having concluded that it is appropriate for the Court to resolve, under. Rule 12(c), whether the patents-in-suit claim patent-eligible subject matter, the Court will now consider the substance of Defendants’ motion. The Court will begin with a discussion of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice. Thereafter, the Court will assess, in turn, whether each of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit merely claim an abstract idea, rendering such claims invalid and indicating that it is “certain” that Plaintiff “cannot prove any set of facts in support of [its] claim entitling [it] to relief.” See Priority Auto, 757 F.3d at 139.

1. Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

The Intellectual Property Clause of the United States Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8. Pursuant to such authority, Congress has defined the subject matter eligible for patent protection by providing that “[wjhoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, as the Supreme Court reiterated in Alice, “ ‘[w]e have long held that this provision contains an implicit exception: [ljaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’ ” 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 569 U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 2116, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013)). In explaining such exception, the Court has noted:

[w]e have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of pre-emption. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the basic tools of scientific and technological work. Monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it, thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws. We have repeatedly emphasized this ... concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity.

At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas....

Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the building blocks of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby transforming them into a patent-eligible invention. The former would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the underlying ideas, and are therefore ineligible for patent protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our patent laws.

Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354-55 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, with those preemption principles in mind, an invention claims patent-eligible subject matter if it is directed to a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” and does not constitute an attempt to patent a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.

Congress has established that the burden of demonstrating that a patent claims ineligible subject matter lies with the party challenging validity. Under 35 U.S.C. § 282,

[a] patent shall be presumed valid. Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity.

35 U.S.C. § 282. In addition, “ ‘[a] party seeking to establish that particular claims are invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35 U.S.C. § 282 by clear and convincing evidence.’ ” Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1149 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (quoting State Contracting & Eng’g Corp. v. Condotte Am., Inc., 346 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed.Cir.2003)); see also, e.g., Wolf v. Capstone Photography, Inc., 2:13-cv-09573, 2014 WL 7639820, at *5, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156527, at *12-13 (C.D.Cal. Oct. 28, 2014) (citations omitted). The Fourth Circuit has established the following standard regarding “clear and convincing evidence:”

“[C]lear and convincing has been defined as evidence of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established, and, as well, as evidence that proves the facts at issue to be highly probable.”

United States v. Hall, 664 F.3d 456, 461-62 (4th Cir.2012) (alteration in original) (quoting Jimenez v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 269 F.3d 439, 450 (4th Cir.2001)).

To determine whether the patents-in-suit claim patent-eligible subject matter, the Court must apply the two-step framework that the Supreme Court set forth in Alice. First, the Court must “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of [the] patent-ineligible concepts,” that is, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice, 134 5.Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1296-97, 182 L.Ed.2d 321 (2012)). To determine whether a claim is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, “a court must evaluate the claims ‘[o]n their face’ to determine to which ‘concept’ the claims are ‘drawn.’ ” Amdocs, 56 F.Supp.3d at 817 (quoting Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2356) (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 609, 130 S.Ct. 3218, 177 L.Ed.2d 792 (2010)). In other words, a court “must identify the purpose of the claim ... what the claimed invention is trying to achieve ... and ask whether the purpose is abstract.” Cal. Inst. of Tech. v. Hughes Commc’ns Inc., 59 F.Supp.3d 974, 991 (C.D.Cal.2014).

Importantly, though .the Supreme Court has not “delimit[ed] the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category” of patent ineligible subject matter, Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357, the Court has indicated that such category is not limited simply to “preexisting, fundamental truth[s] that exist in principle apart from any human action,” id. at 2356 (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Supreme Court has suggested that a “method of organizing human activity” or “fundamental economic practice” can fall within the patent-ineligible category of abstract ideas. See id. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit has rejected the notion that “the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea necessarily turns an abstraction ■ into something concrete.” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715. At step one, prior art plays no role in a court’s analysis. See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.Supp.3d 1167, 1173-75 (C.D.Cal.2014). But see McRO, Inc. v. Valve Corp., No. SACV 13-1874-GW(FFMx), 2014 WL 4772200, at *9 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 22, 2014) (unpublished).

If an invention is directed toward a patent-ineligible abstract idea, second, the Court must “consider 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, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1297-98). Those additional elements “must be more than ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity.’ ” Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715 (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1298). This second step is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — ie., 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.’ ” Id. (alteration and emphasis in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). Yet, “transformation into a patent-eligible application requires ‘more than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words ‘apply it.’ ” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357 (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). Moreover, “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity,’ ” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981)), and the narrowness of an abstract idea does not render patentable an otherwise patent-ineligible idea, see buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353 (citing Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1303). Nor does “the mere recitation of a generic computer ... transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2358.

2. The Validity of the Patents-in-Suit

The Court will now consider whether each of the patents-in-suit claims patent-eligible subject matter under the two-step Alice framework stated above. However, before analyzing each of Plaintiffs asserted claims, the Court will address Plaintiffs contention that the Court should deny Defendants’ motion because Defendants have failed to challenge the validity of the patents-in-suit claim-by-claim. See PL’s Opp’n to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings at 18-19. Plaintiff correctly notes that Alice requires the Court to address the elements of the asserted claims in the patents-in-suit both individually and as an ordered combination. However, Plaintiff overlooks the fact that the Alice Court itself considered only a representative claim to determine the validity of all of the claims at issue. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2352 n. 2. Other courts have also considered the validity of multiple patent claims based on a representative claim. E.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 711-13; Amdocs, 56 F.Supp.3d at 819-20. Therefore, to the extent it is permissible to challenge the validity of multiple patent claims under section 101 through an analysis of a representative claim, the Court rejects Plaintiffs contention regarding Defendants’ failure to present a claim-by-claim analysis of the patents-in-suit. See Wolf, 2014 WL 7639820, at *10 n. 3, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156527, at *30-31 n. 3.

a. The '204 Patent

i. Claims 1, 2, 19, and 21 Claim an Abstract Idea

Under the first step in Alice, the Court finds that Claims 1, 2, 19., and 21 of the '204 patent are directed to the abstract idea of creating computer-readable files to store information, as applied in the particular technological environment of conducting a locate operation. Claim 1 of the patent is directed at a method for generating a “searchable electronic record of a locate operation,” that is, ;“one or more computer-readable files that include some or all of the information regarding a locate operation,” Markman Opinion and Order at 58, “performed by a locate technician in a dig area, wherein at least a portion of the dig area is planned to be excavated....” '204 patent at 34:52-56. At their core, the elements of Claim 1 involve: A) electronically receiving information, to include an image of the dig area; B) displaying such information, including the image, on a display device; C) adding a digital representation of physical locate marks to the image; and D) electronically transmitting and/or storing non-image data relating generally to a locate operation to create a computer-readable file including information related to a locate operation. Those elements embrace the abstract process of taking input information, in the form of an image; displaying it; adding additional information to it — the representation of the physical locate marks; and storing such information in a computer readable file, as applied in the particular technological environment of conducting locate operations. The mere fact that Claim 1 involves information specific to a locate operation does not, without more, alter the Court’s conclusion that it is directed towards an abstract idea because “the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment’.... ” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92, 101 S.Ct. 1048)). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.

The Court also determines that the other asserted method claims, Claims 2 and 19, are directed at the abstract idea of creating computer-readable files to store information, as applied in the particular technological environment of locate operations. Such claims . are dependent on Claim 1 and do not limit the application of the idea in Claim 1 in such a manner as to alter the Court’s analysis stated above. Claim 2 simply limits element C in Claim 1 to require the use of a “user input device” to add the physical locate marks to the input image. '204 patent at 35:10-14. The manner in which the locate mark information is added to the image does not alter the fact that the purpose of the method in Claim 2 is to take information in the form of an input image, display that information on a display device, add more information to it in the form of a representation of a physical locate mark, and then electronically transmit and/or store non-image data relating generally to a locate operation to create a computer readable file that stores that information. Likewise, Claim 19 is directed to the same abstract idea as Claim 1. Claim 19, in conjunction with Claim 17, limits Claim 1 to require that the input image in Claim 1 comprise a photographic image, such photographic image comprising “one or more of a topographical image, a satellite image, and an aerial image.” See id- at 35:66-67, 36:4-6. In other' words, Claim 19 limits the claimed invention by limiting the type of information that is displayed on the display device, to which the information regarding the representation of the locate marks is added, and that is ultimately included in the computer-readable file. However, the alteration of the initial input information into the display device does not alter the Court’s conclusion that Claim 19 is directed at the abstract idea of creating a computer-readable file to store information, as applied in the particular technological environment of locate operations.

In addition, the asserted apparatus claim of the '204 patent, Claim 21, is directed to the same abstract idea to which Claim 1 is directed because Claim 21 is indistinguishable, in substance, from Claim 1. The Supreme Court has “long ‘warn[ed] ... against’ interpreting § 101 ‘in ways that make patent eligibility depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ ” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2360 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at 1294). Put simply, a system or medium claim can be treated the same as a method claim where there is no “material difference” between the categories of claims. Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1277; see also Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1341 (citing CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 717 F.3d 1269, 1274 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.2013) (en banc), aff'd, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014)) (noting that a majority of the Federal Circuit sitting en banc, though in different opinions, has held that “system claims that closely track method claims and are grounded by the same meaningful limitations will generally rise and fall together.”). Thus, the Alice Court held that system claims were patent-ineligible because they merely “recite[d] a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea” as the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer stated in the patent’s method claims. See 134 S.Ct. at 2360. Here, in substance, Claim 21 is identical to Claim 1. Claim 1 recites a method for performing the abstract idea of creating a computer-readable file to store information, as applied in the particular technological environment of conducting locate operations. Similarly, Claim 21 simply recites “a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea,” namely a “communication interface,” “display device,” “memory to store processor executable instructions,” and a “processing unit coupled to” such other components that through “processor-executable instructions by the processing unit” cause the processing unit to facilitate the performance of elements A-D of the met