iVinci Partners, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2020

2019005785 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/590,817 01/06/2015 Kent F. Ivanoff 4497.005US1 2350
21186 7590 06/22/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
KWONG, CHO YIU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENT F. IVANOFF, VINCENT MARTINO,
NIKOLAUS R.A. TROTTA, and DAVID L. ARNETT

Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee, iVinci
Partners, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a systems and methods of managing
payments. Spec. ¶ 2. The claimed invention:
may, for example, enable brokering of charges or balances,
configuring financing and payment options for settling amounts
owed, assessing guarantor propensity to pay, linking of multiple
guarantor accounts to a manager guarantor, linking of accounts
across multiple billing systems, gathering and deriving business
intelligence data, managing and presenting account data,
facilitating dispute resolution, and generating longitudinal
portrayals of visits, among other things, to, for example,
improve a payment experience for a business, a customer, and
other parties involved.
Spec. ¶ 4.
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
7. A computer-implemented method for creating unified
data from linking accounts across separate healthcare billing
systems, the method comprising:
transmitting a first request to a first patient billing system
to obtain first visit data that is tracked by the first patient billing
system, wherein the first request is conducted according to a
first data sharing protocol, and wherein the first request
identifies a first patient account of an identified patient;
receiving the first visit data from the first patient billing
system in response to the first request, wherein the first visit
data conforms to a first data format;
transmitting a second request to a second patient billing
system to obtain second visit data that is tracked by the second
patient billing system, wherein the second request is conducted
according to a second data sharing protocol, wherein the second
request identifies a second patient account of the identified
patient, wherein the second patient billing system is
independent from the first patient billing system, and wherein
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

3
the first patient billing system obtains data from a first data
source to fulfill the first request and the second patient billing
system obtains data from a second data source to fulfill the
second request;
receiving the second visit data from the second patient
billing system in response to the second request, wherein the
second visit data confonns to a second data format, wherein the
first visit data and the second visit data relate to transactions
submitted by respective healthcare providers for distinct health
care charges of the identified patient, with the first visit data
specifying a first visit charge for a first visit, and the second
visit data specifying a second visit charge for a second visit;
aggregating the first visit data pertaining to the first visit
charge with the second visit data pertaining to the second visit
charge, using an aggregation of data for the identified patient in
a particular time frame of the first visit and the second visit,
wherein the data is aggregated based on an association of a
characteristic of the identified patient occurring in the first visit
and the second visit;
generating unified visit data from among linked accounts
based on the aggregate of the first visit data and the second visit
data, wherein the unified visit data represents a longitudinal
record of distinct healthcare transactions for the identified
patient, and wherein the unified visit data conforms to a third
data format;
generating a graphical representation of a statement
encompassing the unified visit data from among the linked
accounts, the statement including information from the first
visit data pertaining to the first visit charge aggregated with
infom1ation from the second visit data pertaining to the second
visit charge;
receiving payment data specifying a payment vehicle for
paying a payment amount within the graphical representation of
the statement;
communicating a transaction request to a payment
gateway to request the payment gateway process an electronic
financial transaction to obtain payment funds in the payment
amount from a payor financial institution associated with the
payment vehicle, to transfer a first portion of the payment funds
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

4
to a payee financial institution associated with the first patient
billing system, and to transfer a second portion of the payment
funds to a payee financial institution associated with the second
patient billing system; and
communicating one or more electronic posting files to
notify the first patient billing system of transfer of the first
portion of the payment funds toward payment of the charge for
the first visit and to notify the second patient billing system of
transfer of the second portion of the payment funds toward
payment of the charge for the second visit.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–13, and 15–222 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without an inventive concept.
OPINION
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. 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,

2 Although rejected in the Final Action, claims 23 and 24 were canceled by
amendment, after the final rejection, on February 15, 2018, and the
amendment was entered by the Examiner on February 27, 2018.
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

5
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. Kappos, 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);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); 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
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

6
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (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 turn 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 application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (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. (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.
In January 2019, the PTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the
Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) 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) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

7
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:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional”
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(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 Guidance.

Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
The Appellant argues all claims together as a group. See, generally,
Appeal Br. 9–15. We select claim 7 as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In a final rejection prior to the publication of the Guidance, the
Examiner finds the claims “are directed to aggregating a first and a second
patient visit data to generate a third data to process payment of bill,” and are
similar to cases found abstract “such as organizing existing data into a new
form in Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.”
Final Act. 4.
After publication of the Guidance, the Examiner finds, “[b]ut for
being executed by one or more processors, the steps of the claimed invention
[are] of no significant difference from a human operator or analyst manually
sending request, receiving data, aggregating data and generating data,”
which, under the Guidance, “covers commercial practice.” Ans. 4.
Claim 7 recites the following two steps, after several limitations about
transmitting requests for data and receiving data, and before limitations
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

8
about generating a statement, and receiving and communicating additional
data:
aggregating the first visit data pertaining to the first visit
charge with the second visit data pertaining to the second visit
charge, using an aggregation of data for the identified patient in
a particular time frame of the first visit and the second visit,
wherein the data is aggregated based on an association of a
characteristic of the identified patient occurring in the first visit
and the second visit;
generating unified visit data from among linked accounts
based on the aggregate of the first visit data and the second visit
data, wherein the unified visit data represents a longitudinal
record of distinct healthcare transactions for the identified
patient, and wherein the unified visit data conforms to a third
data format.
The Specification describes that the system uses a “matching engine”
to identify unmatched accounts, and associates the accounts with each other,
using a matching algorithm. Spec. ¶ 175 (cited at Appeal Br. 7). The
matching engine “may utilize a matching algorithm that may use or
otherwise consider, for example, one or more of: a name of the patient or
guarantor on the unmatched transaction, at least a portion of an ID number
(e.g., an SSN, driver's license), a date of birth, and an address.” Spec. ¶ 175.
Then, the “batching engine 1014 may associate all visits for a given
guarantor (or group of linked guarantors) during a specific period of time
(e.g., monthly) and present this aggregated pool of obligations as a batch of
open charges and/or an open charges balance for payment or for financing.”
Spec. ¶ 176.
The above-recited processes of aggregating and generating unified
data involves making observations about the data, evaluating the data, and
making judgments about the data, which are concepts that can be performed
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

9
practically in the mind, and thus claim 7 recites a process that can be
practically performed mentally. Guidance at 52; see also MPEP §
2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A). Tellingly, the Specification indicates that the process
can be performed manually, by relying on manual intervention when
matching by the matching engine fails. Spec. ¶¶ 154, 175, 208.
In addition, because the method of aggregating billing data is directed
to improving payment systems (Spec. ¶ 4), and the above-recited claim
limitations involving the same, the claim also recites commercial
interactions, and thus represents an abstract method of one of certain
methods of organizing human activity. Guidance at 52 (“commercial or
legal interactions”); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
We thus agree with the Examiner that claim 7, as recited, is a process
that essentially involves “manually sending request, receiving data,
aggregating data and generating data” that can be practically performed
mentally, and also “covers commercial practice (such as aggregating patent
visit data for billing purposes in the invention).” Ans. 4. The claims thus
recite judicial exceptions in the form of processes that can be performed
mentally and commercial interactions.

Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
Next, we evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a
“practical application.” Guidance at 54.
The additional elements, beyond the abstract idea, appear in two
groups, as follows. Before the limitations that aggregate and generate
unified data, the claim recites:
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

10
transmitting a first request to a first patient billing system
to obtain first visit data . . . ;
receiving the first visit data from the first patient billing
system in response to the first request . . . ;
transmitting a second request to a second patient billing
system to obtain second visit data . . . ;
receiving the second visit data from the second patient
billing system in response to the second request . . . .
After the limitations that aggregate and generate unified data, the
claim recites:
generating a graphical representation of a statement
encompassing the unified visit data . . . ;
receiving payment data specifying a payment vehicle for
paying a payment amount within the graphical representation of
the statement;
communicating a transaction request to a payment
gateway to request the payment gateway process an electronic
financial transaction . . . ; and
communicating one or more electronic posting files to
notify the first patient billing system of transfer of the first
portion of the payment funds toward payment of the charge for
the first visit and to notify the second patient billing system of
transfer of the second portion of the payment funds toward
payment of the charge for the second visit.
The statement generated is “a graphical representation,” which the
Appellant asserts is supported in paragraphs 175 and 177 of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 7. There is no description there of any particular
manner of generating the statement, so we construe the claim term to mean a
simple output step of printing billing information on paper, or an electronic
approximation of printed output.
The first four limitations, of transmitting requests and receiving data,
and the receiving of payment information, in the second group, are directed
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

11
to data gathering and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. Guidance
at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
The remaining limitations in the second group, that generate a
statement and communicate results, are steps that essentially generate output
of the aggregated, unified data, and are also insignificant extra-solution
activity. Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g); Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010) (“Flook stands for the proposition that 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.”’) (Quoting
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92).
Continuing the analysis, we note the method concerns “managing
payments” (Spec. ¶ 2), and as such the claimed method does not improve
another technology, because any improvement recited by the claims
concerns managing payments through consolidated billing and payments.
Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). The Specification describes
that the method “may be embodied in machine-executable instructions to be
executed by a general-purpose or special-purpose computer (or other
electronic device).” Spec. ¶ 426. Because a particular computer is not
required, the claim also does not define or rely on a “particular machine.”
Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(b). Further, the method does not
transform matter. Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § § 2106.05(c). The
method has no other meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)), and thus
merely recites instructions to execute the abstract idea on a computer (MPEP
§ 2106.05(f)). Guidance at 55.
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

12
As such, based on the guidelines articulated in the Guidance and
MPEP, we determine that claim 7 does not integrate the judicial exception
into a “practical application.”

Step 2B of the Guidance
In Step 2B, we consider whether an additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field. Guidance at 56.
The additional elements of transmitting requests, receiving data,
generating output files, and communicating a message to process a payment,
are basic computer operations capable of being performed by any general-
purpose computer, as is what the claimed invention relies on. See Spec.
¶ 426. The operations of storing, analyzing, receiving, and writing data are
primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ discussed below, those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). And a
re-evaluation of those additional elements as an ordered combination does
not lead us to a different result.
We thus conclude under Step 2B that the method of claim 1 does not
represent an inventive concept that is something more than the recited
abstract idea.

Arguments
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

13
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the claims are
not a mental process because claim 7’s “generating a graphical
representation of a statement” is, according to the Appellant, “not simply
something that a human can do manually or mentally, but instead is directed
to providing a graphical representation (a computer output) which includes a
statement encompassing the unified visit data from among the linked
accounts.” Appeal Br. 10–11.
First, the claim limitation fails to recite that it is performed by, or for,
a computer, and even if it did involve “computer output,” such an output
step is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, as we noted above.
Second, the Specification does not describe the act of generating a
graphical representation as anything beyond merely creating a bill or invoice
or statement that contains information. See Spec. ¶¶ 175, 177 (cited at
Appeal Br. 7). Creating bills, invoices, and statements has been performed
manually by businesses and governments for hundreds of years, with a
variety of contents.
We are also unpersuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the claims
are not directed to a commercial interaction, because “the claims do not
recite the actions of ‘billing’ or ‘payment’ by itself, but rather, how to unify
and process disparate formats of billing data to enable downstream payment
processing to more efficiently occur. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
Reformatting data is a task that can be performed mentally by a human.
Additionally, the invention as described as “managing payments” and being
able to “improve a payment experience.” Spec. ¶ 4. Managing payments is
part of normal commercial interactions for each party to a transaction.
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

14
Citing our Decision on Appeal in Application 14/954,763, the
Appellant argues that in that case “the Board confirmed that the claims as a
whole were not directed to an abstract idea,” and that therefore the claims
here are similarly patent eligible. Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
We disagree with the Appellant’s characterization of the decision, because,
instead of what is asserted, in that Decision we reversed the rejection under
§ 101 on the basis of a lack of evidence on the part of the Examiner as to
whether the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea were well-
understood, routine, and conventional. Ex parte Ivanoff, Appeal No. 2017-
006131 at 13 (PTAB 2018). In any case, the limitations present in those
claims, for which the Examiner failed to provide evidence, are not found in
the claims before us today and therefore because the claims are different, our
earlier decision is not relevant to the instant claims on appeal.
The Appellant argues that, based on communicating notice of
payment to each billing system, and linking account data from separate
billing systems, the claimed invention is directed to a practical application,
because these steps reduce the number of data transactions and operations
that need to be performed. Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br. 4–5.
Rather than accept the Appellant’s definition of “practical application” as a
method that reduces the number of data transactions and operations, our
analysis is based on the elements we articulated above. See Guidance at 54–
55.
We are not persuaded by the Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
has failed to provide evidence that “the particular element or combination of
elements expressed in the claims (e.g., the configuration of the generic
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

15
computer) is well-understood, routine, and conventional,” especially because
there are no prior-art rejections pending. Appeal Br. 14–15.
Although our analysis above also addresses whether the “additional
elements” in the claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional, the
Examiner provided ample evidence in the rejection on this issue, as
demonstrated by the following excerpt:
The limitations are merely instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer and require no more than a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions including
transmitting request (Receiving or transmitting data over a
network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec),
receiving data (Receiving or transmitting data over a network,
e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec),
communicating to notify a system (Receiving or transmitting
data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,
Symantec), extracting data (Electronically scanning or
extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction
and Transmission) and receiving selection (Receiving or
transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to
gather data, Symantec or A web browser's back and forward
button functionality, Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network,
Inc.).
Final Act. 5.
The Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception
without an inventive concept. For the reasons above, we sustain the
rejection.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-005785
Application 14/590,817

16
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–13,
15–22
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–13,
15–22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED