Humana Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2022

2021002201 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2022)

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. 14/619,931 02/11/2015 Keith Glassford HUM2027-192B 8712 8698 7590 01/06/2022 STANDLEY LAW GROUP LLP 6300 Riverside Drive Dublin, OH 43017 EXAMINER REYES, REGINALD R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3626 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2022 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): standleydocketing@standleyllp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEITH GLASSFORD, KELLY MCDONALD, and SANDY CHIU ____________ Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, and 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Humana, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 2 THE INVENTION Appellant claims a computerized member health indicator system and method and, more particularly, a method for monitoring, maintaining, and improving the health of populations. (Spec. ¶¶ 2-3, Title). Claim 21 is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 21. A system for determining, presenting, and contextualizing a health indicator score for each member of a health insurance population, the system comprising: one or more databases comprising: a community data measure for each geographic area corresponding to the residence of each member of said health insurance population, wherein said community data measures are determined from information regarding physical environment, average socio-economic status, clinical care availability, and typical health behaviors for each geographic area; a consumer data measure for each member of said health insurance population, wherein said consumer data measures are determined from information regarding consumer purchasing activity and preferences for each member of said health insurance population; a health program enrollment measure for each member of said health insurance population, wherein said health program enrollment measures are determined from information regarding member enrollment in exercise programs, educational programs, and behavior modification programs; and a member health measure for each member of said health insurance population, wherein said member health measures are determined from health insurance claims data for each member of said health insurance population; an electronic display; and a computer comprising a processor and an electronic storage device, wherein said computer is in electronic communication with said electronic display, and wherein said electronic storage device comprises software instructions, which when executed, configure the processor to: Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 3 receive a user selection of a member of said health insurance population; retrieve from the one or more databases the community data measure, consumer data measure, health program enrollment measure, and member health measure for said selected member; apply, by said processor, predetermined weightings to each of said retrieved community data measure, consumer data measure, health program enrollment measure, and member health measure; add, by the processor, the weighted community data measure, consumer data measure, health program enrollment measure, and member health data measure to determine the health indicator score for said selected member; store, at said one or more databases, said health indicator score; retrieve, from said one or more databases, health indicator scores for the selected member over a predetermined period of time; generate, for display on the electronic display, an individual timeline in the form of a line chart which plots the retrieved health indicator scores for said selected member over the predetermined period of time, said individual timeline denoting health events and life events for said selected member during said predetermined period of time as callouts on said individual timeline, wherein said health events comprise enrollment in wellness programs, medications prescribed, and therapies performed; retrieve, from said one or more databases, health indicator scores over the predetermined period of time for members of said health insurance population whose residence is within a geographic area; generate, for display on the electronic display, a community timeline in the form of a line chart which plots the retrieved health indicator scores for the members of said health insurance population whose residence is within the geographic area over the predetermined period of time; and generate, for display on the electronic display, a member information display comprising information sufficient to Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 4 identify the selected member, a current health indicator score for the selected member, and a community comparison display comprising the average health score for the geographic area along with a graphical representation of said geographic area; wherein said average socio-economic status is determined by evaluating information regarding average education levels, employment levels, income, family and social support availability, and community safety for each geographic area corresponding to the residence of each member of said health insurance population; wherein said consumer data measures are determined by evaluating information indicating tobacco use, alcohol use, food purchases, exercise related purchases, lifestyle choices, household income, household composition, and leisure activities for each member of said health insurance population; wherein said life events comprise deaths of family members, diagnosis of conditions, report of medical events, and surgeries performed; wherein said predetermined weighting are selected to reflect the accuracy of the data source from which the respective measure was received. THE REJECTION Claims 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION We will sustain the rejection of claims 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 5 determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, . . . then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)) (citations omitted). To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335-36. In so doing we apply a “directed to” two prong test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 6 The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to a method of organizing human activity. (Final Act. 4). The Examiner finds that the judicial exception recited in the claims is not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Final Act. 4-5). Finally, the Examiner finds that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. (Id. at 5). The Specification discloses that healthcare providers, insurance providers and various governmental agencies tasked with monitoring, maintaining and improving the health populations require information about the health of individuals that comprise the population. (Spec. ¶ 3). In furtherance of this goal, these healthcare providers, insurance providers and governmental agencies gather various pieces of health as well as environmental and other information in order to estimate the health of groups based on the health of individuals. (Id.). There is a need for a system and method of calculating an indication of an individual’s current health condition using these data sources. (Id. ¶ 5). Therefore, the Specification discloses a system and method of organizing the health tracking activity of healthcare providers, insurers and government agencies. As such, the Specification discloses a method of organizing human activity. Consistent with this disclosure, claim 21 recites “receive a user selection of a member . . .”; “determine the health indicator score for said selected member”; “store . . . said health indicator score”; “retrieve . . . health indicator scores for the selected member over a predetermined period Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 7 of time”; and “generate . . . a current health indicator score for the selected member . . . .” We, thus, agree with the Examiner’s findings that the claims are directed to controlling the behavior of persons concerning monitoring the health of individuals. It follows from prior Supreme Court cases, and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed to an abstract idea. Controlling the behavior of persons concerning the monitoring of health data is a method of organizing human behavior, which is not eligible subject matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-20. The concept of patient monitoring is a fundamental medical practice long prevalent in our system of medicine. The use of patient monitoring is also a building block of any healthcare system. Thus, patient monitoring, like hedging, is an “abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20. Also, we find the steps in which the processor acts to “retrieve . . . the community data measure, consumer measure data, health program enrollment measure, and member health measure”; “apply . . . predetermined weightings to each of said retrieved community data measure, consumer data measure, health program enrollment measure, and member health measure”; “determine the health indicator score . . . ”; “store . . . said health indicator score,” etc. constitute “analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims directed to certain arrangements involving contractual relations are directed to abstract ideas). Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 8 Thus, we find that claim 21 recites the judicial exception of methods of organizing human activity and in the alternative, a mental process. Turning to the second prong of the “directed to test,” claim 21 requires “databases,” “processor,” and an “electronic storage device,” which do not impose “a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. We find no indication in the Specification, nor does Appellant direct us to any indication, that the operations recited in independent claim 21 invoke any inventive programming, require any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney argument, that attributes any improvement in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the Guidance. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In this regard, the recitation does not effect an improvement in the functioning of the databases, processor, or electronic storage device computer or other technology, does not recite a particular machine or Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 9 manufacture that is integral to the claim, and does not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Thus, claim 21 recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application and, thus, is directed to abstract ideas. Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that the claim 21 is directed to abstract ideas, claim 21 must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent eligible, i.e., there must be an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). The introduction of computer components such as the databases, processor, and electronic storage device into claim 21 does not alter the analysis at Alice step two. [T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (alterations in original) (citations omitted). Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 10 Instead, the relevant question is whether claim 21 here does more than “simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. It does not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; see also 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,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming”). In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 21 adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis- access/display is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 11 Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional. Claim 21 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the recited computer components. As we stated above, claim 21 does not effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification does not provide additional details about the databases, processor and electronic storage device that would distinguish them from any generic database, processor or storage device. Rather, claim 21 merely adapts the method of organizing human activity and mental process of monitoring health data. See Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology.”); see also Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”). Thus, claim 21 amounts to nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea of monitoring health data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 12 We have reviewed all the arguments (Appeal Br. 11-19; Reply Br. 2- 8) Appellant has submitted concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We find that our analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which have been made. But, for purposes of emphasis, we will address various arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same. We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellant’s argument that the category of certain methods of organizing human activity is not intended to cover computers following programming rules or instructions. Specifically, Appellant argues that the invention includes “applying weightings to certain data based on accuracy of sourced data, retrieving data from databases, and generating timelines with specific information - each of which is performed electronically in an automated fashion by computerized equipment.” (Appeal Br. 13-14). As the Federal Circuit has made clear, “the basic character of a process claim drawn to an abstract idea is not changed by claiming only its performance by computers, or by claiming the process embodied in program instructions on a computer readable medium.” See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982)). Appellant points to Example 37 of the USPTO’s “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas”2 as supporting its position because the claimed invention is very specific as to the type of data to be considered, how it is to be processed, and how it is to be presented to solve a particular 2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf. Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 13 problem. (Appeal Br. 16). But, the Office did not determine that hypothetical claim 1 in Example 37 is patent eligible merely because the claim recites a specific manner of displaying icons on a graphical user interface. Instead, the Office concluded that hypothetical claim 1 is patent eligible because the claimed method results in an improved interface for electronic devices. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, 2- 3. No comparable improvement is presented here. Appellant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application as was the claim in Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, because the claims are very specific as to the data used, how the data are analyzed to arrive at a health score, and explain how the improved end result is accomplished. The claim in Example 42 was integrated into a practical application because it allowed remote users to share information in real-time in a standardized format even though information was input in a non-standardized format. Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas, 18-19. Here, claim 21 does not convert information that is input by a user in a non-standardized format into a standardized format, automatically generate a message when the updated information is stored, or transmit the message to all users to share that information over a network as in Example 42. Rather, claim 21, in accordance with the Examiner’s response to this argument, merely presents analyzed data in a timeline format for users. (Ans. 5). We do not agree with Appellant that improvements to data presentation as in the present claims at a GUI involve subject matter eligible material in accordance with the holding in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). (Appeal Br. 17). Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 14 In Core Wireless, the court held that claims, which recited an interface, were patent eligible because the claims were directed to the actual user interface displayed and how it functions. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. The court found that the claims were directed to an improved user interface and not the abstract concept of an index as the claim “limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id. Claim 21 of the instant application does not recite an improvement to the interface itself but rather, as the Examiner finds, presents a timeline in a form of a line chart, which plots health events of selected members. (Ans. 6). Appellant argues that the underlying concern of preemption favors allowance of the claims. (Appeal Br. 17). “While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less abstract.”). And, “[w]here a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21. Appellant argues that the multi-step analysis must be undertaken and Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 15 made explicit for each and every claim so that it may be properly evaluated by Appellant. (Appeal Br. 18). There is no dispute that examiners are to examine each claim individually. But consideration of each claim individually does not require a separate written analysis for each individual claim. We decline to find error here in the Examiner’s decision to not address the patent eligibility of each of the claims separately inasmuch as the claims are all directed to the same abstract idea. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is] unnecessary.”). Independent claim 36 is substantially similar to independent claim 21. And the dependent claims merely further detail how the determining, presenting, and contextualizing a health indicator score trading is conducted. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claims 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, and 40. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, 40 101 Eligibility 21, 24, 26, 34, 36, 39, 40 Appeal 2021-002201 Application 14/619,931 16 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