Ex Parte Xue et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 29, 2019

13011504 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/011,504 01/21/2011
6147 7590 01/31/2019
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Feng Xue
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.
243630-1 4779
EXAMINER
MORGAN, ROBERT W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2019 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FENG XUE, RICHARD L. FROWEIN, PIERO PATRONE
BONISSONE, SUSAN M. QUINION, MELISSA JARONESKI,
ANGELA NEFF PATTERSON, and JAMES KENNETH ARAGONES
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, MATTHEWS. MEYERS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method for identifying and addressing operational
deficiencies at a hospital, the method comprising:
accessing a plurality of hospital records generated in
response to a plurality of inputs to a hospital information
system implemented in a computer, wherein at least part of said
hospital records are generated real-time and further wherein
said at least part of said hospital records, generated real-time,
comprises data based on at least one of: card key readers; and
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags;
computationally transforming the hospital records into
one or more databases present in the hospital information
system;
computationally extracting and calculating a plurality of
features and corresponding plurality of values from the one or
more databases, wherein the calculated features and the
corresponding values comprise statistical measures that
summarize aspects of the hospital information system at
different times and wherein the features characterize a plurality
of operations of the hospital;
statistically deriving a performance indicator from the
calculated features and the corresponding values that provides a
measure of operational performance related to the plurality of
operations of the hospital, wherein the performance indicator
relates to at least one derived value that represents an aspect of
the operational performance related to the plurality of
operations of the hospital at different times;
forming a multivariate time series from the performance
indicator, wherein the multivariate time series characterizes a
state of one or more of the plurality of operations of the hospital
states;
analytically identifying one or more root causes
contributing to the performance indicator, wherein the one or
more root causes relate to at least one of the plurality of features
that contributes to the at least one derived value of the
performance indicator;
2
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
generating one or more recommendations related to one
or more of the plurality of operations of the hospital based on
the one or more root causes; and
implementing at least one of the one or more
recommendations by an operator or a decision maker.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Pollack us 5,809,477 Sept. 15, 1998
Scherpbier et al. US 2007/0129983 Al June 7, 2007
(hereinafter "Scherpbier")
Weidenhaupt et al. US 2008/0235057 Al Sept. 25, 2008
(hereinafter "W eidenhaupt")
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as ineligible subject matter.
II. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Pollack, Weidenhaupt, and Scherpbier. 2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
ANALYSIS
Subject-Matter Eligibility
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
2 We regard as inadvertent the Examiner's inclusion (Final Action 5) of
claim 7 in the description of the obviousness rejection. See Final Action 13;
Appeal Br. 10, 17.
3
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific
and technological work, such that including them within the domain of
patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon
them. Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013).
Of course, "[a]t some level, 'all inventions ... embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply"' these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (internal citation
omitted). Accordingly, evaluating ineligible subject matter, under this
judicial exclusion, involves a two-step framework for "distinguish[ing]
between patents that claim the buildin[g] block[ s] of human ingenuity and
those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby
transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention." Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The first step determines whether the claim is
directed to judicially excluded subject matter (such as a so-called "abstract
idea"); the second step determines whether there are any "additional
elements" recited in the claim that ( either individually or as an "ordered
combination") amount to "significantly more" than the identified judicially
excepted subject matter itself. Id. at 217-18.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("2019
Revised Guidance"). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is "directed
4
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
to" an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of ( 1) mathematical
concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental
processes - without integrating such abstract idea into a "practical
application," i.e., without "apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or us[ing] 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." Id. at 53-55. A claim so "directed to"
an abstract idea constitutes ineligible subject matter, unless it recites an
additional element ( or combination of elements) amounting to significantly
more than the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
With regard to the first step of the Alice framework, the Examiner
states that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "comparing new and
stored information and using rules to identify options" - an abstract idea
identified by the Federal Circuit in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological
Laboratories, SA, 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (non-
precedential). Final Action 3. Viewed through the lens of the 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, the Examiner's analysis depicts the claimed
subject matter as an ineligible "[m]ental process[]."
Under the second step of the Alice framework, the Examiner
determines that the claims do not include any additional element( s)
amounting to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Final
Action 3. Rather, the additional limitations constitute generic computer
devices and functions. Id. at 3--4.
The Appellants argue claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-23 as a group.
See Appeal Br. 8-11. Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein. See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
Notwithstanding the Appellants' statement "that the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea" (Appeal Br. 9), the Appellants do not dispute
the propriety of the Examiner's determination that the claim are directed to
the abstract idea of "comparing new and stored information and using rules
to identify options" (Final Action 3). Instead, the Appellants specifically
contend that the claims include "significantly more" than the identified
abstract idea alone. See Appeal Br. 9--11. Specifically, the Appellants argue
that claim 1 requires positional tracking of patients, resources, and
personnel. See id. at 9 ( arguing that particular claim limitations "are part of
an overall system that relates to patient, resource, and personnel data tracked
in real-time with positioning systems, such as card key readers, Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) tags, and so forth.") The Appellants
contend that, on account of positioning-system functionality, the claimed
subject matter "transforms" claim 1 's recitation of "accessing hospital
records," surpasses any "routine" operation, and effects an "improvement to
[sic] technical field of data access and operational efficiency of hospitals."
Id. at 9--11.
These arguments are unpersuasive, because claim 1 does not require
the supposed positioning-system functionality. Even though the claim
features upon which the Appellants purport to rely - claim 1 's "at least part
of said hospital records, generated real-time, comprises data based on at least
one of: card key readers; and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags"
(see id. at 9--11) - might be used in a positioning system, claim 1 does not
require such functionality. Indeed, even though the Specification refers to
"data related to patient flow and utilization of facilities and/or equipment
within a hospital" (Spec. ,r 1 ), the Specification shows that "flow" may refer
6
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
to stages in a patient treatment, and not necessarily positional information.
See id. ,r,r 26 (referring to "event sequences ( e.g., patient flows)"), 40
(referring to "the treatment and/or observation of the patient (i.e., patient
care flow)"), 43 (same). Thus, the abstract idea identified by the Examiner
is not integrated into a practical application, per the second prong of
"Revised Step 2A" of the 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
Nor do the Appellants show error, on the Examiner's part, in applying the
second step of the Alice framework ("Step 2B" of the 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56-57).
In view of the foregoing analysis, we sustain the rejection of claims
1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-23, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
The Appellants argue that the obviousness rejection should be
reversed, alleging that Scherpbier does not teach or suggest the following
limitation of independent claim 1:
accessing a plurality of hospital records generated in
response to a plurality of inputs to a hospital information
system implemented in a computer, wherein at least part of said
hospital records are generated real-time and further wherein
said at least part of said hospital records, generated real-time,
comprises data based on at least one of: card key readers; and
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags.
See Appeal Br. 12. According the Appellants:
It is clearly evident that Scherpbier employs its Radio
Frequency Identification (RFID) tags only for tracking location
of the patients and balancing the load between the waiting area
and the treatment rooms. Scherpbier does not teach or suggest
or disclose generation of any hospital record or accessing any
hospital records generated in response to a plurality of inputs to
a hospital information system implemented in a computer,
7
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
wherein at least part of said hospital records are generated real-
time and further wherein said at least part of said hospital
records, generated real-time, comprises data based on at least
one of card key readers; and Radio Frequency Identification
(RFID) tags as recited in one form or other in the previously
presented versions of independent claims 1, 10 and 14.
Id. at 15. Thus, the Appellants take the position that Scherpbier's RFID-
created data does not teach or suggest the claimed "hospital records," such
that Scherpbier does not teach or suggest "accessing a plurality of hospital
records," as recited in claim 1.
Yet, the Examiner does not even rely upon Scherpbier, alone, for the
teaching of claim 1 's "hospital records" and the "accessing" thereof. Rather,
the Examiner relies upon the primary reference, Pollack, together with
Scherpbier, for these features. See Final Action 5---6, 11-12, Answer 7-9.
"[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references." In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981) (citation omitted). Accordingly,
the Appellants' argument does not persuade us of error in the rejection of
independent claim 1 and, for like reasons, the rejection of independent
claims 10 and 14.
Because the Appellants present no separate argument for any of the
dependent claims, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-17, and 19-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-
17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-
17, and 19-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal2017-008728
Application 13/011,504
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9