Shahram Dastmalchi et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 24, 2021

2020000377 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2021)

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. 13/801,947 03/13/2013 Shahram Shawn Dastmalchi APX-1203-US 7927 36088 7590 05/24/2021 KANG LIM 3494 Camino Tassajara #444 Danville, CA 94506 EXAMINER KING, JOHN B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2498 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SHAHRAM SHAWN DASTMALCHI, VISHNUVYAS SETHUMADHAVAN, MARY ELLEN CAMPANA, ROBERT DERWARD ROGERS, and IMRAN N. CHAUDHRI1 ________________ Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 5, 10–13, 15–17, and 19, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Apixio, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed February 27, 2019, (“Appeal Br.”) 3. Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A medical information navigation engine (“MINE”) is provided. In some embodiments, the system computes a current patient encounter vector for a current patient encounter, and then an optimal patient encounter vector is computed by assuming a best case patient encounter in accordance with the organizational objectives. The system is then able to compute the difference between the best case encounter and the current patient encounter. This difference is used to compute a corresponding payoff using an intelligent matrix. Abstract. Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed language emphasized, is representative2 of the claimed subject matter: 1. In a Medical Information Navigation Engine (“MINE”), a computerized method for knowledge extraction and exchange, the method comprising: generating a plurality of patient state timelines on a server, wherein each patient state timeline corresponds to a particular patient, and wherein each patient state timeline is an ordering of individual states in a time order; generating a plurality of impact measures for each of the plurality of patient state timelines, wherein each impact measure is a cost of services provided at a given time to transition from one state to another; 2 Appellant argues claims 1, 5, 10–12, and 15–17 together as a group. Appeal Br. 10–12. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 3 identifying a state of interest in a subset of the plurality of patient state timelines; aligning the subset of the plurality of patient state timelines at a time when the state of interest occurs; summing all impact measures after the state of interest occurs for each of the plurality of patient state timelines to generate a probability distribution of future impacts; generating a suggestion model by analyzing the distribution of future impacts to select actions that change the likelihood of a future outcome that maximizes at least one organizational objective, wherein the at least one organizational objective includes safety, quality of life measure and reduction of net present cost; and applying the suggestion model to one patient state timeline to generate recommendations. STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS3 Claims 1, 5, 10–12, and 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebadollahi (US 2012/0041772 A1; published Feb. 16, 2012), Roberts (US 6,601,055 B1; issued July 29, 2003), and Gorup (US 2007/0083390 A1; published Apr. 12, 2007). Final Act. 4– 10. 3 Initially, the Examiner additionally rejected claims 1, 5, 10–13, 15–17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. Final Action mailed June 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”) 2–4. However, the Examiner withdrew this § 101 rejection in the Examiner’s Answer. Examiner’s Answer mailed August 21, 2019 (“Ans.”) 10. We disagree with this withdrawal. Because we are affirming the obviousness rejections, though, we need not reinstate the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of the claims for being directed to patent- ineligible subject matter without reciting significantly more. Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 4 Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebadollahi, Roberts, Gorup, and Mahmood (US 2006/0026036 A1; published Feb. 2, 2006). Final Act. 10. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ebadollahi, Roberts, Gorup, and Wennberg (US 2007/0078680 A1; published Apr. 5, 2007). Final Act. 10–11. DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS Appellant argues that the Examiner relies on paragraph 40 of Ebadollahi to teach the claimed “individual states” of the patient state timelines, but that the claim requires the individual states to be “in a time order,” i.e., be temporal elements. Appeal Br. 11. According to Appellant, paragraph 40 of Ebadollahi merely teaches using patient histories to calculate a similarity score. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that the calculated similarity score is not a temporal element that would make the score comparable to the claimed “individual states in a time order.” Id. at 12. Appellant further contends that Roberts, Gorup, Mahmood, and Wennberg fail to remedy the deficiencies of Ebadollahi. Id. The Examiner responds that paragraph 40 of Ebadollahi is relied on for its teachings concerning an event in a patient timeline and that the additional teachings concerning similarity scores are ancillary. Ans. 11. More specifically, the Examiner explains that paragraph 37 of Ebadollahi additionally teaches that events correspond to disease stages in a patient’s medical history. Ans. 12. Thus, the Examiner urges, the events taught by paragraphs 37 and 40 of Ebadollahi are clearly temporal elements and therefore disclose the claimed “individual states in a time order.” Ans. 12. Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 5 ANALYSIS The Examiner has set forth a rationale for why Ebadollahi teaches a patient state timeline, as claimed, and Appellant has not explained why the Examiner’s explanation or why the combined teachings of paragraphs 37 and 40 of Ebadollahi do not correspond to the claim language. Specifically, Appellant has not explained why the Examiner is wrong in interpreting that the claimed “states” read on the timeline events, as described in paragraphs 37 and 40 of Ebadollahi. Accordingly, Appellant has not demonstrated error in the Examiner’s interpretation. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 and also of claims 5, 10–12, and 15–17, which depend from claim 1. We, likewise, affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 13 and 19, which Appellant does not argue separately. Appeal Br. 12. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5, 10–12, 15– 17 103(a) Ebadollahi, Roberts, Gorup 1, 5, 10– 12, 15–17 13 103(a) Ebadollahi, Roberts, Gorup, Mahmood 13 19 103(a) Ebadollahi, Roberts, Gorup, Wennberg 19 Overall Outcome 1, 5, 10– 13, 15–17, 19 Appeal 2020-000377 Application 13/801,947 6 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED