KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2020

2019005665 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
14/191,936 02/27/2014 Saeed Reza Bagheri 2012P02040US01 8630
24737 7590 07/14/2020
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
ROTARU, OCTAVIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2020 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):
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
patti.demichele@Philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte SAEED REZA BAGHERI, VIKRANT SUHAS VAZE,
HANQING CAO, CHARLES LAGOR, and ANA IVANOVIC
________________

Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–14, and 17–21. 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 Koninklijke
Philips N.V. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

2

Summary of the Disclosure
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to calculating “holistic
financial risks to caregiving facilities” using healthcare data key
performance indicators “to determine a net risk from both government
regulations and other sources of financial risk.” Abstract.
Representative Claim
1. A medical system to calculate holistic financial risks to
caregiving facilities, said medical system comprising:
at least one processor programmed to:
receive healthcare data for a caregiving facility;
receive a first set of one or more key performance
indicators (KPIs) relating:
regulatory data to financial risk of the caregiving
facility from government regulations, further to the
caregiving facility, the government regulations
including at least risk of readmission;
receive a second set of one or more KPIs including
non-regulatory data to the financial risk from one
or more sources other than the government
regulations, further to the caregiving facility; and
simultaneously apply the first and second sets of
KPIs to the healthcare data to determine a net risk
from both the government regulations and the one
or more sources of financial risk;
wherein the first and second sets of one or more KPIs are
calculated based on data received from a public data
space, another data space specific to the caregiving
facility, and a survey data space; and
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed
to calculate the risk of readmission based on a hospital
specific rate readmission rate for a specific diagnosis
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

3

related group, an index of the specific diagnosis related
group, values from the public data space, and a plurality
of KPI parameters;
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed
to perform what-if scenarios for the determined net risk
based on one or more user inputs from the data stored in
each of the public data space, the another data space
specific to the caregiving facility, and the survey data
space;
wherein the first and second sets of one or more KPIs are
calculated based on a probability density function of
[Sx×Sy×Sz×ℝ+×ℝ→ℝ+],[2]
wherein [Sx, Sy, and Sz] represent the public data space,
the another data space, and the survey data space,
respectively, [ℝ] represent all real numbers, and [ℝ+]
represents all non-negative real numbers; and
wherein the at least one processor is further programmed
to control a display device to display data indicative of
results of the risk analysis.
The Examiner’s Rejections and Cited References
The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 8–14, and 17–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 15–30.
ANALYSIS
Principles of Law
To constitute patent-eligible subject matter, an invention must be a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,

2 We used the typography from the Specification’s support for the
probability density function (p. 4, l. 5) to avoid the type of confusion that
simplified typography (see Appeal Br. 16) can lead to (see, e.g., Final Act.
30).
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

4

or [a] new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are
implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified
in 35 U.S.C. § 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena;
and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). The U.S. Supreme Court has set forth a framework for
distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions
“from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at
217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.
66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part framework: (1) determine
whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea; and (2) if so, then determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217–18.
Last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published
guidance on the application of the two-part analysis. USPTO, 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7,
2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”); see also USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/
files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (Oct. 17, 2019) (“Oct. 2019
Update”). 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) (see 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54 (step 2A, prong one)); and
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

5

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see id. at 54–55 (step 2A,
prong two); 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 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 2A, Prong One
The Examiner determines the claim 1 calculation of holistic financial
risks to caregiving facilities recites fundamental economic practices. Final
Act. 18. That is, the Examiner determines that claim 1 recites an abstract
idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e.,
fundamental economic principles or practices including mitigating risk).
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The Examiner bases the
determinations that are pertinent to Step 2A, Prong One, on the recitations of
claim 1, such as receiving healthcare data, receiving key performance
indicators, and applying key performance indicators to healthcare data to
determine risk. See Final Act. 15–17.
Appellant does not show error in the Examiner’s determinations as
they relate to Step 2A, Prong One. Rather, Appellant argues that “even if,
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

6

arguendo, the alleged abstract ideas asserted in the Office Action [are]
deemed to satisfy Step 2A, Prong One . . . claim 1 is nonetheless patent
eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2.
Indeed, we agree with the Examiner that calculating holistic risks (i.e.,
protecting against risk) through the gathering, analysis, and display of data is
an instance of certain methods of organizing human activity through
fundamental economic principles or practices such as risk mitigation. See
Ans. 6–7; 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed Reg. at 52; cf. also Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)); Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(determining that “analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [is] essentially mental
processes within the abstract-idea category” and that “merely presenting the
results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without
more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an
ancillary part of such collection and analysis”).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea (i.e., certain methods of organizing human activity through
fundamental economic principles or practices such as risk mitigation).
Step 2A, Prong Two
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate
the underlying abstract idea into a practical application because claim 1 “is
directed to a medical system to calculate holistic financial risks to caregiving
facilities.” Appeal Br. 10. But applying the recited risk mitigation techniques
to a medical system does nothing more than generally link the use of the
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

7

underlying abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of
use. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appellant notes claim 1 recites
at least one processor programmed . . . to determine a net risk
from both the government regulations and the one or more
sources of financial risk . . . [,] to calculate the risk of
readmission . . . [,] to perform what-if scenarios for the
determined net risk . . . [, and] to control a display device.
Appeal Br. 10. But the recitations of what the at least one processor is
programmed to do are part of the underlying abstract idea, not additional
recitations.
Furthermore, the broadly worded steps do not have limited rules
structured in a manner that limits claim 1 to a specific process for
determining net risk, calculating risk of readmission, or performing what-if
scenarios. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Nor do the recitations improve the functioning of the
at least one processor. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cf. also 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer may indicate that the exception is integrated into a practical
application). Rather, the claim recitations merely use the “at least one
processor” as a tool to perform the underlying abstract idea. Cf. 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (an additional element that “merely
uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea” does not integrate an
abstract idea into a practical application).
Appellant also argues claim 1 effects a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition because it is the costs, based
on the calculated holistic financial risks, “which are used to effect particular
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

8

treatments.” Reply Br. 3. That is, Appellant argues the system of claim 1
does “not need to treat the disease, but rather must effect (i.e., cause)
treatment for a disease.” Id.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because the “treatment or
prophylaxis limitation must be ‘particular,’ i.e., specifically identified so that
it does not encompass all applications of the judicial exception.” Oct. 2019
Update, *14. Claim 1 does not recite a particular treatment or prophylaxis
for a disease or medical condition.
Furthermore, we are unable to identify any additional recitations that
implement the underlying abstract idea with, or use the underlying abstract
idea in conjunction with, “a particular machine or manufacture that is
integral” to claim 1, or that effect “a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing,” or that apply or use the
underlying abstract idea “in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the [underlying abstract idea] to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
For these reasons, claim 1 does not include additional recitations that
integrate the recited abstract idea (i.e., certain methods of organizing human
activity through fundamental economic principles or practices such as risk
mitigation) into a practical application.
Step 2B
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we now
consider whether any additional recitations or combination of recitations
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

9

amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to this step in
the 101 analysis. Moreover, we are unable to identify any recitations that
provide the requisite inventive concept to make claim 1 significantly more
than the underlying abstract idea. Claim 1 recites elements such as “at least
one processor” and “a display device.” The Specification discloses, for
example, that “a processor includes one or more of a microprocessor, a
microcontroller, a graphical processing unit (GPU), an application-specific
integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), and the
like.” Spec., 10:22–25. The Specification also discloses that “a display
device includes one or more of a liquid crystal display (LCD), a[] light-
emitting diode (LED) display, a plasma display, a projection display, a touch
screen display, and the like.” Id. at 10:28–30. These broad disclosures to a
number of pre-existing technologies demonstrate that the additional
recitations were well-understood, routine, and conventional.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not include
additional recitations that, considered individually or in combination,
transform the abstract idea to which claim 1 is directed (i.e., certain methods
of organizing human activity through fundamental economic principles or
practices such as risk mitigation) into a patent-eligible invention.
Additional arguments
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in citing cases that antedate
the 2019 Revised Guidance. See Reply Br. 3 (cases decided before issuance
of the 2019 Guidance “cannot be relied upon to determine the subject matter
eligibility of claims,” which “must be analyzed for subject matter eligibility
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

10

using the 2019 Guidance”). Although “USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance,” Examiner
rejections are nonetheless properly “based upon the substantive law.” 84
Fed. Reg. at 51. The 2019 Revised Guidance itself is “rooted in Supreme
Court caselaw” (id.) and includes citations to numerous decisions of the
Supreme Court and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Thus, the
Examiner’s citation to case law that antedates the 2019 Revised Guidance is
not an adequate basis for reversal.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claim 1, and claims 3–6, 8, 9 and 11, which depend therefrom
and are not argued separately.
Other Claims
Appellant contends that independent claim 13 and 21, and dependent
claims 2, 10, 12, and 18–20, are patent-eligible for the same or similar
reasons as claim 1, or recite additional elements that integrate the alleged
abstract idea into a practical application. See Appeal Br. 11–14. Appellant
does not provide specific arguments to support these contentions, but instead
merely reproduces recitations from the other claims. Id. Therefore, for the
reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claims 2, 10, 12, 13, and 18–21. We further sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 14 and 17, which depend
from claim 13 and are not argued separately.
Appeal 2019-005665
Application 14/191,936

11

CONCLUSION
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–14, 17–21 101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–14, 17–21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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