Blazer and Flip Flops, Inc dba The Experience Engine

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2021

2020005759 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 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.
16/010,355 06/15/2018 Scott Sahadi TE2-035 3753
138557 7590 12/21/2021
Polsinelli LLP - TE2
3 Embarcadero Center
Suite 2400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
SHAHEED, KHALID W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2021 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):
sfpatent@polsinelli.com
uspt@polsinelli.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SCOTT SAHADI
____________

Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision finally rejecting claims 1–5 and 11–20.2,3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The Specification relates generally “to an experience development and
management platform,” and more particularly “to development, deployment
and real time management of highly personalized experiences occurring at
managed locations.” Spec. ¶ 2.
The Specification explains that “[l]ocations that host visitors provide a
wide range of experiences” such as “special events,” and “provide various
goods and services,” causing the “[i]tems available at any given point of
interest within a location” to “change throughout a day or season.” Spec.
¶ 3. This “complex and changing environment” makes it “very difficult to
provide visitors with relevant information at all times as the visitors move”
and presents “challenges . . . for personnel to keep track of what is
happening through a location at a given time and to help each visitor have a
favorable experience throughout a visit” as well as “challenges . . . for
visitors to communicate among themselves or communicate with the

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Blazer and Flip Flops, Inc. dba The
Experience Engine. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 6–9 stand objected to as dependent upon a rejected base claim, but
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 14.
3 Claim 10 stands neither rejected nor objected to as dependent upon a
rejected base claim. Claim 10 is not before us on appeal.
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

3
personnel of a venue.” Id. The invention endeavors “to intelligently make
recommendations to users and to groups of users based on different types of
information about a venue and the user(s).” Id. ¶ 4.
Independent claim 1 follows:
1. A method for assisting a venue staff member in providing
guidance within a predetermined venue area, the method
comprising:
receiving, from a mobile device associated with the venue staff
member, a location of the mobile device associated with the
venue staff member;
receiving, from a mobile device associated with a venue
attendee, a location of the mobile device associated with the
venue attendee;
retrieving an itinerary associated with the venue attendee, the
itinerary identifying a point of interest;
generating a suggested path for the venue attendee from the
location of the mobile device associated with the venue attendee
to a location of the point of interest identified by the itinerary;
generating a current path of the venue attendee based on the
location of the mobile device associated with the venue attendee
and one or more past locations of the mobile device associated
with the venue attendee;
identifying a dissimilarity between the suggested path for the
venue attendee and the current path of the venue attendee,
wherein identifying the dissimilarity includes identifying that a
heading corresponding to the current path is directed closer
toward a location of a second point of interest than toward the
location of the point of interest identified by the itinerary; and
sending an alert to the mobile device associated with the venue
staff member automatically in response to identifying the
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

4
dissimilarity, the alert identifying at least the venue attendee and
the point of interest.4
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
III. REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal follows:
Name Reference Date
Nakano et al. (“Nakano”) US 2002/0128768 A1 Sep. 12, 2002
Yoshioka et al.
(“Yoshioka”)
US 2010/0225469 A1 Sep. 9, 2010
Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) US 2017/0048664 A1 Feb. 16, 2017
IV. REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Yoshioka. Final Act. 4.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Yoshioka and Zhang. Final Act. 11.5
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Yoshioka and Nakano. Final Act. 13.

4 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether the
claimed “the point of interest” is clear as to whether it is directed to the first
“point of interest” (i.e., “a point of interest,” “the point of interest”) or to
“the second point of interest” recited.
5 The Examiner rejects claim 5 under the 102 heading as anticipated by
Yoshioka, but claim 5 depends on claim 4, which is rejected under the 103
heading over Yoshioka and Zhang.
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

5
V. OPINION
Section 102 Rejection
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added)
identifying a dissimilarity between the suggested path [generated
for the venue attendee from the location of the mobile device to
a location of the identified point of interest] for the venue
attendee and the current path of the venue attendee, wherein
identifying the dissimilarity includes identifying that a heading
corresponding to the current path [generated based on location
and one or more past locations of the venue attendee] is directed
closer toward a location of a second point of interest than toward
the location of the point of interest identified by the itinerary.
The Examiner finds that Yoshioka’s “‘detour degree’ . . . represents
the difference between expected travel route and the current position away
from that reroute” and teaches “identifying a dissimilarity between the
suggested path . . . and the current path of the venue attendee” as claimed.
Final Act. 6–7 (citing Yoshioka ¶¶ 108, 67, 103, Fig. 11). Specifically, the
Examiner finds that Yoshioka’s “detour degree indicates the direction the
child is heading.” Id. The Examiner also finds that Yoshioka’s “learning
that a child being kidnapped is headed in a ‘direction opposite to home’”
teaches that “the child’s heading or direction is factored in based on their
current path which is opposite to home.” Ans. 4 (citing Yoshioka ¶ 113).
Appellant argues that Yoshioka fails to describe “identifying that a
heading corresponding to a current path is directed closer toward a
location of a second point of interest than toward a location of a point of
interest identified by an itinerary as in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 15.
Specifically, Appellant argues that Yoshioka’s detour degree calculation
“does not factor in a heading corresponding to the current path as in
claim 1.” Id. at 14. According to Appellant, Yoshioka’s “detour degree” is
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

6
“not based on heading,” but instead is “determined using, and expressed as,
values of distance or of time to arrival.” Reply Br. 7.
Yoshioka discloses an example for “calculating a detour degree in the
case where the child A travels along the route shown.” Id. ¶ 103. In this
example, “it is assumed . . . that the child A is predicted to go home based on
the child A’s schedule or the like” and that “the child A is going home via
the ‘Ume candy store.’” Id. Yoshioka discloses calculating the “route cost
required for traveling from the departure point to the current position,” for
example as “300 meters,” and the “route cost required for traveling from the
current position to the destination,” for example as “500 meters,” and then
calculating the “detour degree based on these route costs.” Id. ¶¶ 104–105.
Yoshioka also considers an example “case where the child A’s detour degree
has exceeded a predetermined threshold value, there is a possibility that the
child A is being kidnapped to a direction opposite to home.” Id. ¶ 113.
As persuasively argued by Appellant, Yoshioka describes calculating
a detour degree based on route costs which are based on distances and time.
However, Yoshioka does not describe “identifying a dissimilarity between
the suggested path for the venue attendee and the current path of the venue
attendee” by “identifying that a heading corresponding to the current path is
directed closer toward a location of a second point of interest than toward
the location of the point of interest identified by the itinerary.” In particular,
Yoshioka does not describe calculating a detour degree based on heading.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of independent claim 1, independent claims
Appeal 2020-005759
Application 16/010,355

7
14 and 18, which recite the same material limitations, and claims 3, 11–13,
15–17, 19, and 20, dependent therefrom. See Appeal Br. 16.
Section 103 Rejection
Because the Examiner has not shown that the additional references
cure the foregoing deficiency regarding the rejection of the independent
claims 1, 14, and 18, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of
dependent claims 2, 4, and 5.
VI. CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, and 11–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 4, and 5 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 11–20 102 Yoshioka 1, 3, 11–
20
4, 5 103 Yoshioka, Zhang 4, 5
2 103 Yoshioka, Zhang,
Nakano
2
Overall
Outcome
1–5, 11–
20

REVERSED