doctor or other medical professional, data on a number or percent of prompts not replied to by a subject, data on a subject’s sleep/wake cycle, data on whether a subject had a bowel movement, data on an amount of time a portable electronic device is in suspend mode, data bn a subject’s gender, or data on a subject’s location.”). Employing a database to store data does not add inventiveness. See e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2016) (“[I]t is clear that the claims contain no inventive concept. The recited elements, e.g., a database,., .are all generic computer elements.”). Moreover, applying traditional statistical tools to data cannot possibly provide the inventive step necessary to become patent-eligible. OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the specific data types referenced
holding that the implementation of an abstract idea using computer functions that are  wellunderstood routine conventional activities previously known to the industry did not supply an inventive concept quoting mayo collaborative servs v prometheus labs inc 566 us 66 79 132 sct 1289 182 led2d 3212012 holding that wellunderstood routine conventional activities are insufficient to transform an abstract idea into a patenteligible application holding that the introduction of a computer into the claims does not render the idea patenteligible holding that expected or routine activities in a chapter 11 case do not constitute substantial contribution holding that damages are not relief that is available under the idea