Ex Parte AMUNDSON

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 2019

13094443 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/094,443 04/26/2011 Russell Henry AMUNDSON 26111 7590 04/24/2019 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2997.0010000 1658 EXAMINER AUGUSTINE, VICTORIA PEARL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): e-office@stemekessler.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RUSSELL HENRY AMUNDSON Appeal2017-006316 1 Application 13/094,443 2 Technology Center 3600 Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SCHOPPER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-31, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 4, 8, and 10 have been cancelled. An 1 Our decision references the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed May 12, 2016), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Feb. 7, 2017), the Supplemental Appeal Brief ("Supp. Br.," filed Feb. 22, 2018), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Dec. 7, 2016), the Examiner's Advisor Action ("Adv. Act.," mailed Jan. 4, 2016), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 18, 2015). 2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dr. Russell Henry Amundson. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 oral hearing was held on April 4, 2019. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We REVERSE. BACKGROUND According to Appellant, "[ t ]he present invention relates to health information, and more particularly to displaying and editing health information using mobile client devices." Spec. ,r 1. CLAIMS Claims 1, 12, 20, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed claims and recites: 1. A method for processing medical data comprising: displaying, in a client interface, an interactive worksheet comprising a plurality of questions associated with a registered patient; receiving responses to the plurality of questions; displaying, in the client interface, the received responses, wherein the client interface is configured to receive edits to the received responses; sending the received responses to a provider; displaying, in a provider interface, the received responses as a grid, wherein the provider interface is configured to receive annotations and edits to at least one of the received responses; converting, by a processor, the received responses into a medical record for the registered patient; and displaying the medical record as a spectral array including plotting medical data corresponding to a plurality of body systems associated with the registered patient that is weighted according to a level of objectivity or intervention using color, symbol, and timeline elements to represent the registered patient's medical history, wherein the spectral array comprises links to further information or data. 2 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 Appeal Br. 15. REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as claiming ineligible subject matter. DISCUSSION An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 to include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk."). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 ); 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). 3 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267---68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. ( citation omitted) ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."). If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible 4 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation and quotation marks omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published revised guidance on the application of the Alice and Mayo framework. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 ("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 1) (see Memorandum Step 2A - Prong One) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) (see Memorandum Step 2A - Prong Two) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§Â§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). 4 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim (see Memorandum Step 2B): 4 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance). Solely for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office guidance). See USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance." 5 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.0S(d)); or ( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum. Here, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception because the claims "are directed to a method and system for analyzing patient data and creating a report." Ans. 3. The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to abstract ideas including "comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options," "using categories to organize, store, and transmit information," "collecting information ... and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," and "an abstract idea amounting to an idea itself to receiving response to questions and displaying the responses in a spectral array format." Id. at 4. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a judicial exception. See Memorandum Step 2A - Prong One. Claim 1 recites steps for "displaying ... an interactive worksheet comprising a plurality of questions," "receiving responses to the ... questions," displaying those responses for editing, sending the responses to a provider, again displaying the responses for editing; converting the responses into a record, and displaying the record. Thus, the claims recite steps related to the interactions of a patient and medical providers, which are used to create a medical record reflecting the patient's health and care provided. We determine that these are steps for managing personal behavior or 6 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions for creating a medical record. Thus, these steps represent a method of organizing human activity, which is an abstract idea. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. However, our analysis under Alice step 1 does not end there. Rather, the "directed to" inquiry in the Alice framework requires, where a claim recites a judicial exception, an evaluation of whether the claim "appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[ s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception," i.e., a determination of whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See Memorandum Step 2A - Prong Two. Here, we determine that claim 1 includes additional limitations that impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception and, thus, it is integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the resulting medical record is not provided as a generic display, but rather, it is displayed in the form of a spectral array including plotting medical data corresponding to a plurality of body systems associated with the registered patient that is weighted according to a level of objectivity or intervention using color, symbol, and timeline elements to represent the registered patient's medical history, wherein the spectral array comprises links to further information or data. Appeal Br. 15. The Specification describes the advantages of presenting a medical record as a spectral array: One advantage of the spectral array is that it reduces complex medical histories to a body system coded display comprising color, symbol and timeline elements to convey a patient's entire medical 'story' as an easily decipherable image. Another advantage of displaying spectral arrays is that they enable patient education directed links (PED Ls), which, in an embodiment, 7 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 comprise directed educational links relevant to a registered patient based upon their body system specific ailments and reported complaints. Spec. ,r 17. The Specification further describes how a spectral array may be used to present all types of medical information regarding specific body systems into an image. For example, The scale of a spectral array is one of increasing objectivity and level of intervention. In addition to body system specific color- coding for pixels comprising icons in spectral arrays, the icons can also be coded based on a level of severity for a symptom or patient complaint. In one embodiment, such severity coding is a numeric range (i.e., 1-6). In an embodiment, each line of icons ( comprising color-coded pixels) in spectral arrays 510 and 520 represent a timeline of contiguous encounters with a given patient 112. Id. at 79. The spectral array "indicates a convergence of icons representing historical, exam, and ancillary data within one of the eight body systems shown in the spectral array." Id. at ,r 80. We determine that the display of the medical record as a spectral array as required by the claim, and as supported by the Specification, goes beyond merely tying the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., medical records, and is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The display of a medical record as a spectral array as claimed, and as further explained in the Specification, represents a meaningful limit on the judicial exception in the form of a practical application. Based on the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Further, each of the remaining independent claims recites a substantially similar requirement of presenting a medical record as a spectral array. Thus, for the reasons discussed, we also do not sustain the 8 Appeal2017-006316 Application 13/094,443 rejection of independent claims 12, 20, and 22. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-19, 21, and 23-31. CONCLUSION We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 11-31. REVERSED 9