AOL Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 4, 2021

2021001770 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 4, 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.
14/300,866 06/10/2014 Patrick McDEVITT 00008-0070-00000 4868
114629 7590 11/04/2021
Bookoff McAndrews
2020 K Street, NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
SNIDER, SCOTT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/04/2021 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):
Kross@bomcip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
usptomail@bomcip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PATRICK McDEVITT,
JOSEPH HUGHES, and JON SZYMANSKI
__________________

Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6 and 8–20, which are all of the pending
claims.2 See Appeal Br. 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Oath Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claim 7 is cancelled. See Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 18, and 20 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for optimizing
the timing of message notifications for a mobile device of a user,
the method comprising:
determining a release weight for each of a plurality of
geographic locations at a plurality of times, wherein the release
weight is based on at least a user-specific factor and a real-time
factor, wherein the real-time factor indicates a likelihood the user
will interact with a message sent to the mobile device, wherein
the real-time factor includes a movement and determined
velocity of the mobile device;
receiving an indication of a message to be sent for a client
application executable at the mobile device of the user;
upon receiving the indication of a message, requesting a
current geographic location and determined velocity of the
mobile device via a communication network;
receiving a message weight associated with the message
to be sent; and
when the release weight of the current geographic location
of the mobile device is determined to exceed the message weight,
and when the determined velocity is between a first weight and
a second weight, sending the message for display to the user at
the mobile device via a message notification interface of an
operating system of the mobile device, wherein the message is
added to a message queue when the release weight is determined
to be less than the message weight.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8–12, and 15–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tseng,3 Hall,4 and Mastermann.5

3 WO 2012/087472 A1, published June 28, 2012.
4 US 2010/0293170 A1, published November 18, 2010.
5 US 2015/0105106 A1, published April 16, 2015.
Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
3
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tseng, Hall, Mastermann, and Jung.6
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–6, 8–12, and 15–20
Rejected over Tseng, Hall, and Mastermann
Regarding independent claims 1, 18, and 20, the Examiner finds that
Tseng determines a release weight for geographical locations and times by
using user-specific factors to calculate a relevance score for each third-party
content object relative to a particular user of a social networking system to
include location, interest, time, and connection information, and Tseng also
receives an indication of a message to be sent, requests a geographic location
of a mobile device, and presents messages from a ranked list of messages,
but Tseng does not select messages for display with weights that exceed the
weight associated with the location as claimed. Final Act. 4–5, 12–13.
The Examiner finds that Hall selects messages for display when they
have a score that exceeds a threshold by using location and time data. Id. at
5, 13. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to modify
Tseng to determine an absolute message score, as taught by Hall, to deliver
only the most relevant messages and to find information that is relevant and
useable for presentation to a user as Hall teaches. Id. at 5, 13–14.
The Examiner finds that Tseng does not teach a real-time factor such
as movement and velocity of a mobile device to indicate a likelihood that the
user will interact with a message sent to a mobile phone, but Mastermann
alters notification levels based on a mobile device’s velocity and location,
and this feature would provide similar advantages in Tseng. Id. at 5–6, 14.

6 US 2007/0232274 A1, published October 4, 2007.
Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
4
Appellant argues that Hall does not overcome Tseng’s failure to teach
receiving a message weight associated with the message to be sent and when
the release weight of the current geographic location of the mobile device
exceeds the message weight, and the determined velocity is between a first
weigh and a second weight, sending the message for display to the user at
the mobile device as claimed. Appeal Br. 9–10, 16. Appellant argues that
scoring text terms for assigning messages to subject categories in Hall does
not associate release weights to geographic locations or velocities of mobile
devices. Id. at 10. Appellant argues that none of the references teach or
suggest a “release weight,” a “message weight,” or the claimed relationship
between these weights and a “determined velocity” to determine whether to
“send the message for display to the user” as claimed. Reply Br. 2–3.
Tseng scores third-party content to disseminate to users as messages
based on location, interest, time, and connection values that are combined to
produce a relevance score. Tseng ¶ 59. Tseng ranks the third-party content
into lists and sends notifications to user devices 110 at a maximum push rate
for each time period that can be adjusted based on user interactions with the
notifications at certain times and locations. Id. ¶¶ 79, 80; see Reply Br. 3–4.
The Examiner determines that presenting messages from a ranked list
of messages in Tseng “does not appear to make explicit sending a message
weight and selecting messages for display with weights that exceed the
weight associated with the location.” Final Act. 5, 13 (same for claim 20).
The Examiner cites Hall for “sending messages for display that have a score
that exceeds a threshold” using location and time data. Id. Thus, neither
reference is relied on to teach or suggest sending a message for display
“when the release weight of the current geographic location of the mobile
device is determined to exceed the message weight” as claimed.
Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
5
Hall scores messages based on text terms for a category and criteria
such as location and time data and displays messages whose score equals or
exceeds a threshold value. Hall ¶¶ 8, 51, 52; Final Act. 5 (citing id.). Thus,
Hall determines whether to publish a message by comparing its categorical
score to a threshold value and text terms rather than to a “release weight” of
a current geographic location of a mobile device as claimed. See Hall ¶¶ 8,
51, 52; Appeal Br. 10; Reply Br. 4. The threshold value relates to a category
for content rather than a geographic location of a mobile device. Hall ¶ 8.
Appellant argues that the feature of comparing a “release weight” of a
location of a mobile device to a “message weight” optimizes the timing of
message notifications. Reply Br. 3. In contrast, Hall may optimize message
content to display based on criteria such as time and location (Hall ¶ 52), but
Hall does not optimize or control the timing of when messages are displayed
by comparing a release weight of a current geographic location of a mobile
device to a message’s weight as claimed. Cf. Ans. 4. Tseng sends messages
from a rank ordered list according to a preset push rate. Tseng ¶¶ 79, 80.
Mastermann’s alteration of notification levels of messages based on
the velocity and location of a mobile device may increase the likelihood that
messages may be viewed (Ans. 5), but it does not determine when to deliver
messages and thus does not remedy the deficiencies of Tseng and Hall.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 18, and 20 or
their respective dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, 15–17, and 19.
Claims 13 and 14
Rejected over Tseng, Hall, Mastermann, and Jung
The Examiner’s reliance on Jung to teach features of claims 13 and 14
does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Tseng, Hall, and Mastermann.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14.
Appeal 2021-001770
Application 14/300,866
6
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–12,
15–20
103 Tseng, Hall,
Mastermann
1–6, 8–12,
15–20
13, 14 103 Tseng, Hall,
Mastermann,
Jung
13, 14
Overall
Outcome
1–6, 8–20

REVERSED