Ex Parte Sethumadhavan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 1, 2019

13769261 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/769,261 02/15/2013 Vishnuvyas Sethumadhavan
36088 7590 03/01/2019
KANG LIM
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.
APX-1202-C2 4899
EXAMINER
3494 Camino Tassajara #444 SEREBOFF, NEAL
Danville, CA 94506
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2019 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 VISHNUVYAS SETHUMADHA VAN, MARY ELLEN
CAMPANA, ROBERT DERWARD ROGERS, and
SHAHRAM SHAWN DASTMALCHI
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Apixio, Inc.
2 Claims 2, 4, 6, 12, 14, and 15 have been cancelled.
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
Appellants' invention is a system and method for mining aggregated
clinical documentation. A processor identifies clinically relevant terms in
patient documents, computes associations between pairs of clinically
relevant terms using co-occurrences, and filters out random associations. In
response to user query, a knowledge provider retrieves patient concepts,
ranks a candidate list of results, and provides the ranked candidate list to the
user. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. In a Medical Information Navigation Engine ("MINE"), a
computerized method for computing concept associations by
mining patient documentation in the aggregate, the method
compnsmg:
assembling a plurality of patient documents for a single
patient;
identifying pairs and triples of clinical concepts in the
plurality of patient documents by codes for the clinical concept
in a standardized coding system, using the computerized MINE;
computing associations between the pairs and triples of
clinical concepts using co-occurrences within at least one of the
plurality of patient documents by computing degrees of
correlation between any two of the pairs and triples of clinical
concepts, using the computerized MINE;
filtering out random associations from the computed
associations by taking a ratio of a probability of associations as
observed with probability of association due to randomness,
using the computerized MINE;
repeating the above steps for each of a plurality of
patients;
storing the filtered computed associations for all of the
plurality of patients in an association matrix where protected
health information for any given patient is not exposed;
receiving a plurality of query concepts from a user query
directed to a specific patient, wherein the specific patient is not
part of the plurality of patients;
2
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
extracting a plurality of clinical concepts from patient
documents belonging to the specific patient;
generating a candidate list by cross referencing the
plurality of clinical concepts belonging to the specific patient to
the plurality of query concepts using the association matrix;
ranking the candidate list; and
providing the ranked candidate list to the user.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Ruiz Laza
Eshwar
Phillips
US 2009/0125246 Al
US 2012/0089606 Al
US 2012/0110016 Al
May 14, 2009
Apr. 12, 2012
May 3, 2012
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Phillips, Ruiz Laza, and Eshwar.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed Aug. 30, 2017) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Oct. 4, 2017) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Is the claimed invention directed to a judicial exception?
2. Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
3. Does the combination of Phillips, Ruiz Lara, and Eshwar disclose
or suggest identifying pairs and triples of clinical concepts by codes, and
computing associations, using co-occurrences, by computing degrees of
correlation between any two of the pairs and triples?
3
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
4. Does the combination of Phillips, Ruiz Lara, and Eshwar disclose
or suggest retrieving a plurality of clinical concepts from patient documents,
generating a candidate list by cross-referencing the plurality of clinical
concepts belonging to the specific patient to the plurality of query concepts
using the association matrix, and providing a ranked candidate list to a user?
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. See, 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,
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 );
4
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
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 176; 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. ( 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-
5
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of§
101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that 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 MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
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 Memorandum.
6
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Appellants present a unitary argument directed to all claims together.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 for discussion as representative of the
rejected claims.
Independent claim 1 is directed to a computerized method for
computing concept associations by mining patient documentation. The
method identifies pairs and triples of clinical concepts by codes for the
clinical concept; computes associations between the pairs and triples by
computing degrees of correlation between any two of the pairs and triples;
filters out random associations; and stores the filtered computed associations
in an association matrix. Next, a user query is received; a plurality of clinical
concepts are extracted; and a candidate list is generated and ranked, and
provided to the user.
ABSTRACT IDEA
We conclude that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea
of a mental process. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind. 3 But for the high-level
3 See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.''); Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous
7
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
recitation of "[i]n a Medical Information Navigation Engine ('MINE')," the
claim steps recite identifying pairs and triples of matching concepts;
computing degrees of correlation therebetween, followed by storage of
associations in an association matrix; then extracting and presenting a
ranked list of matching records in response to a user query. Appellants
disclose that the MINE comprises an interface 113, a back-end medical
processor 116, and a front-end medical processor 115. Spec. ,r 34. We
determine that but for the generic computer components recited ( the
"MINE"), the claimed price-point determination, order selection, exclusion,
and share allocation is capable of performance in the human mind.
INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
Having determined that the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception, to wit, the abstract idea of a mental process, we nonetheless
conclude that the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical
application. We determine that the claimed computation of association
between clinical concepts facilitates the later-claimed features of querying
patient data, generating and providing a ranked candidate list of similar other
patients based upon the matrix of associated concepts. We determine that the
loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by
humans without a computer"); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.");
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of "computer" or "computer
readable medium" does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that
"can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
paper" patent eligible).
8
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
claimed invention constitutes an improvement to the functioning of a
computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellants' Specification discloses that processor 116 performs tasks
upon the medical information received by interface 113, including indexing,
semantic meta-tagging, and reconciliation. Spec. ,r 42. For each patient, pairs
and triples of clinical concepts are identified by their code in a standardized
coding system such as SNOMED, ICD-9, ICD-10, LOINC, and HCPCS.
Spec. ,r 93. Based on the co-occurrence of clinical concepts, their degree of
correlation is then computed. Pairwise associations are then filtered to
remove spurious associations. Spec. ,r 94. These associations are then stored
in an association matrix that can be accessed to obtain the degree of
association between any two concepts. Spec. ,r 95. Once this processing is
completed, a user may query a patient chart and receive a candidate list of
related items that are related to said query, and that might be of interest to
the user. Spec. ,r 97.
We do not agree with the Examiner's analogy of the claimed
invention to Digitech Image Technologies v. Electronics for Imaging Inc.,
758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Ans. 2-3. The invention claimed in Digitech
was limited to a device profile comprising first data and second data for
describing a device. Id. at 1347. We also do not agree that the claims are
analogous to the invention in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Ans. 3. While Electric Power Group
concerned gathering, analyzing, and displaying data, the invention under
appeal is further concerned with using the results of data analysis to respond
9
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
to a user query by providing appropriate matching records ranked according
to relevance.
Because we conclude that the claimed abstract idea is integrated into a
practical application, we conclude that the claimed invention is directed to
patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20.
SECTION 103 REJECTION
Appellants present arguments with respect to independent claim 1
only, noting that all other claims are asserted to be allowable for "the same
reasons." App. Br. 18. We therefore review the rejection of claim 1 as being
representative of all of the appealed claims.
Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, a computerized method for
computing content associations by mining patent documentation, comprising
identifying pairs and triples of clinical concepts in the plurality of patient
documents by codes for the clinical concept, and computing associations
between the pairs and triples of clinical concepts by computing degrees of
correlation between any two of the pairs and triples of clinical concepts.
After computation and storage of this information, the method recites
responding to a user query with a ranked list of candidates.
Appellants first argue that Phillips discloses generating a final
probability matrix "in a very different way ... for a very different purpose"
than the claimed invention. App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded of Examiner
error by this initial argument, because Appellants do not explain how
Phillips fails to disclose or suggest any particular claim limitation.
Next, Appellants contend that Phillips fails to disclose that the pairs or
triples are correlated based upon their co-occurrences within a patient's
10
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
records. App. Br. 16. First, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants are
not arguing the precise claim language. Ans. 5. Claim 1 recites "computing
associations between the pairs and triples of clinical concepts using co-
occurrences within at least one of the plurality of patient documents, by
computing degrees of correlation between any two of the pairs and triples of
clinical concepts, using the computerized MINE." Second, we further agree
with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification does not disclose how this
computation of degree of correlation occurs. Ans. 5, Phillips ,r 39. In fact,
Appellants disclose only that "[t]he triples and pairs are collected from all
the patient charts to compute their co-occurrence within a patient chart" and
"[b ]ased on the co-occurrence, the degree of correlation between any two
concepts is computed." Spec. ,r,r 93, 94.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Phillips suggests the claimed
identification of pairs and triples of clinical concepts in the plurality of
patient documents by codes for the clinical concept in a standardized coding
system. Final Act. 8. Phillips discloses identifying matching concepts
appearing in patient documents that may use different concept identifiers in
different terminology code systems. Phillips ,r,r 80-101. We further agree
with the Examiner's finding that Phillips discloses computing associations
between pairs and triples by computing degrees of correlation. Final Act. 8-
9. Phillips teaches that "[p ]robabilistic matching can be used to match
related terminology concepts in ontology-based systems." Phillips ,r 39.
Phillips teaches a matching algorithm able to match clinical concepts using
dissimilar terms. Phillips ,r 55. Phillips also teaches processing a plurality of
coded concepts to determine a potential match between a code from a first
code scheme and a code from a second code scheme, as well as assigning a
11
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
probability to each potential match and accepting user input to select a
match between the first code scheme and the second code scheme. Phillips
,r 4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Phillips discloses or renders
obvious the claimed identification of pairs and triples of clinical concepts,
and the computation of association therebetween.
Appellants' next argument, that Phillips does not disclose ranking the
candidate list, also does not persuade us that the Examiner erred. App. Br.
16. While Phillips does not disclose ranking candidates in haec verba,
Phillips does teach a code score indicating a probability that a code in a first
scheme is the same as another code in a second scheme. Phillips ,r 27.
Phillips thus does teach a quantity indicating utility, which may be used for
comparison with other quantities. Further, as found by the Examiner,
Appellants' Specification discloses that "[t]he ranking of the results can be
based on at least one of recency, risk, strength of association, source of data,
and user context." ,r 12. We agree with the Examiner's finding that "the
scoring [in Phillips] is a user context as disclosed." Ans. 6.
Appellants argue with respect to Eshwar that the reference "has
nothing to do with medical records, medical analysis, or the like," that
"[m]atching identity records has nothing to do with extracting clinical
concepts from patient documents," and that Eshwar's candidate list of
identity records has nothing to do with the claimed candidate list that is
compiled by "cross referencing the plurality of clinical concepts belonging
to the specific patient to the plurality of query concepts using the association
matrix." App. Br. 17. Appellants' arguments are not persuasive, because
Phillips, rather than Eshwar, is relied upon to teach the claim limitations
having to do with computing concept associations by mining patient
12
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
documentation, and with identifying matching clinical concepts; and because
the particular content of the data being queried and retrieved in the
Examiner's proposed combination makes no functional difference. See Ans.
6-7.
As Appellants do not demonstrate that the Examiner erred, we sustain
the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 over
Phillips, Ruiz Laza, and Eshwar.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception - the
abstract idea of a mental process.
2. The judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
3. The combination of Phillips, Ruiz Laza, and Eshwar suggests
identifying pairs and triples of clinical concepts by codes, and computing
associations, using co-occurrences, by computing degrees of correlation
between any two of the pairs and triples.
4. The combination of Phillips, Ruiz Laza, and Eshwar suggests
retrieving a plurality of clinical concepts from patient documents, generating
a candidate list by cross-referencing the plurality of clinical concepts
belonging to the specific patient to the plurality of query concepts using the
association matrix, and providing a ranked candidate list to a user.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is reversed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims
1, 3, 5, 7-11, 13, and 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
13
Appeal2018-001790
Application 13/769,261
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
14