Ex Parte Agami et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2017

14476288 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2017)

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.
14/476,288 09/03/2014 Sion Agami 12153R 1223
27752 7590 04/03/2017
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
ZHAO, DAQUAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2484
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2017 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THE PROCTOR AND GAMBLE COMPANY1
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—4 and 6—19. App. Br. 4.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Sion Agami and Miguel Alvaro Robles are listed as inventors.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed October 30, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed March 29, 2016, as modified by the Response to Notification of
Non-compliant Appeal Brief filed August 15, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 22, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply
Brief filed October 24, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Methods of collecting information from an individual regarding
absorbent products are provided. A method entails collecting
input information from an individual regarding absorbent
product use wherein at least some of the information collected
includes data generally known by most consumers. The method
further entails collecting still or video image data from an
individual consumer using a computing device and uploading the
input information and still or video image data to a server. The
input information and still or video image data is used to output
data regarding the absorbent articles and to output a set of
correlations between the visual data and the input information.
Abstract.
Claims 1—4 and 6—19 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to unpatentable subject matter. Final Act. 3—4.
Claims 1—4 and 6—19 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 4—20 of Agami
(US 8,843,400 B2; issued Sept. 23, 2014). Final Act. 4—5.
The following claims are illustrative of the argued subject matter:
1. A method of collecting information from an individual
regarding an absorbent product, the method comprising:
(a) collecting input information from an individual regarding the
absorbent product use wherein at least some of the information
collected includes data generally known by most consumers;
(b) collecting still or video image data from an individual
consumer using a computing device;
(c) uploading input information and still or video image data to
a server;
(d) using the input information and still or video image data
collected to output data regarding the absorbent products; and
2
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
(e) using the input information and still or video image data
collected to output a set of correlations between the video
image_data and the input information;
wherein the step of collecting still or video image data comprises:
a. placing the absorbent product in proximity to a
computing device configured to capture still or video image data;
b. opening an application on the computing device;
c. selecting information from a drop down menu
regarding the absorbent product;
d. centering the absorbent product;
e. capturing the still or video image data;
f. uploading the still or video image data to a server
through the application.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the step of acquiring still
or video image data from a subject further comprises:
a. using a virtual frame specific to the type of absorbent
product chosen in the drop down menu; and
b. centering the absorbent product using photo alignment
indicia.
7. The method of claim 6, wherein the step of acquiring still
or video image data from a subject further comprises enhancing
a stained area of the absorbent product.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
THE 101 REJECTION
Contentions
The Examiner finds that the pending method claims are directed to the
abstract idea of collecting data from a user, manipulating the collected data,
3
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
and outputting the manipulated data. Ans. 2—3. The Examiner further finds
that none of the limitations add significantly more than this abstract idea. Id.
at 3.
Appellant first asserts that the claims amount to significantly more
than abstract ideas at least for reasons that were set forth in Ex Parte Steven
J. Scott (PTAB Appeal 2012-00934; mailed Mar. 12, 2015) (“Scott
Decision”). App. Br. 4—5. Appellant next argues that the present claims
amount to significantly more than abstract ideas according to the USPTO
101 Guidelines. Id. at 5—6 (citing July 2015 Update to the 2014 Interim
Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility (2014 IEG) published on
Dec. 16, 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 74618), Appendix 1: Examples). We address
these arguments seriatim.
Principles of Law
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012), the Supreme Court set forth an
analytical framework under § 101 to distinguish patents that
claim patent-ineligible laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas—or add too little to such underlying ineligible
subject matter—from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts. First, given the nature of the
invention in this case, we determine whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Alice Corp. v.
CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If so, we then
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 of that abstract idea. Id. This second step is the
search for an “inventive concept,” or some element or
combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in
practice amounts to “significantly more” than a patent on an
ineligible concept. Id.
DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (2014).
4
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
The DDR Holdings court also explained that claims are directed to
patent-eligible subject matter, as opposed to patent ineligible abstract ideas,
when
they do not merely recite the performance of some business
practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the
requirement to perform it on the Internet. Instead, the claimed
solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.
Id. at 1257.
Conversely, claims are ineligible for patent protection when “the
focus of the claims is not on ... an improvement in computers as tools, but
on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 at 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
“[Mjerely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds
the information-based category of abstract ideas.” Id. at 1355.
Analysis
The present claims are distinguishable from those at issue in Scott.
Scott’s invention was directed to a specialized human-machine interface
(HMI), such as a computer touch screen, by which the user, through touch
inputs, could control the touch screen’s graphical display of data trends in a
particular manner. See US Application No. 12/242,396, Specification (the
“’396 Spec.”) H35—39. For example, for a single graphical display that
represents multiple time vs. performance trends (e.g., step-function or
sinusoidal waves), Scott’s HMI system allowed a user to expand or alter the
5
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
scale of one trend, while leaving the other represented trends unchanged.
’396 Spec. 148; FIGs 5, 6. Scott’s claim 1 is illustrative of that claimed
method:
1, A method of operating a Human-Machine Interface (HMI)
system, the method comprising:
receiving operational data associated with an operation of
a machine;
processing the operational data associated with the
operation of the machine to determine a trend in the
operational data;
displaying a graphical representation of the trend;
receiving a first user input and a second user input
simultaneously on a surface of a user interface;
processing the first user input and the second user input to
determine a chance in the trend; and
displaying a graphical representation of the change in the
trend.
Scott Decision 2—3 (citing US Application No. 12/242,396, claim 1).
Scott’s claims, then, were directed to a solution that is rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in
the realm of computer networks. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 at 1257.
That is, Scott’s claims were directed to a method of using an improved
computer tool—not to a method of using a conventional computer tool
merely to manipulate data more efficiently. Electric Power Group, LLC,
830 F.3d at 1354.
In contrast, Appellant does not sufficiently explain why the presently
claimed method steps, either alone or taken as a combination, relate to
improvements in computers as tools. See App. Br.; see Reply Br. Appellant
merely asserts that the present claims “include the use of [] tangible
6
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
device[s],” such as “a computing device to collect still or video image data
of an absorbent product.” App. Br. 5. Nor does Appellant assert or provide
sufficient evidence that dependent claim 6’s use of a virtual frame, or claim
7 and 17’s enhancement of stained areas, entails improvements to
conventional tools.
Appellant’s invention is likewise distinguishable from the cited
example of the July 2015 Interim Patentability Guidelines. Cited claim 2 of
those examples reads as follows:
2. A method of distributing stock quotes over a network to a
remote subscriber computer, the method comprising:
providing a stock viewer application to a subscriber for
installation on the remote subscriber computer;
receiving stock quotes at a transmission server sent from a
data source over the Internet, the transmission server comprising
a microprocessor and a memory that stores the remote
subscriber’s preferences for information format, destination
address, specified stock price values, and transmission schedule,
wherein the microprocessor
filters the received stock quotes by comparing the received
stock quotes to the specified stock price values;
generates a stock quote alert from the filtered stock quotes
that contains a stock name, stock price and a universal resource
locator (URL), which specifies the location of the data source;
formats the stock quote alert into data blocks according to
said information format; and
transmits the formatted stock quote alert over a wireless
communication channel to a wireless device associated with a
subscriber based upon the destination address and transmission
schedule,
wherein the alert activates the stock viewer application to
cause the stock quote alert to display on the remote subscriber
computer and to enable connection via the URL to the data
7
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
source over the Internet when the wireless device is locally
connected to the remote subscriber computer and the remote
subscriber computer comes online.
The Guideline’s explanation associated with Example claim 2 clarifies
when looking at the additional limitations as an ordered
combination, the invention as a whole amounts to significantly
more than simply organizing and comparing data. The claimed
invention addresses the Internet-centric challenge of alerting a
subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s
computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert
over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock
viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables
the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data
source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer
comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more
than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general
concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet,
because they solve an Internet-centric problem with a claimed
solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology,
similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings.
Id. at 4—5.
Appellant’s claims merely are directed to “the performance of some
business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the
requirement to perform it on the Internet.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d 1245 at
1257. Restated, Appellant’s claims are directed to the patent ineligible
abstract ideas of data collection, analysis, and display. Furthermore, the
claims lack sufficient additional elements that would confine the abstract
idea to a particular useful application.
THE NON-STATUORY DOUBEE PATENTING REJECTION
Because Appellant presents no arguments regarding the Examiner’s
non-statutory double patenting rejection (Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 3—5), we
8
Appeal 2017-001026
Application 14/476,288
summarily sustain this rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02 (“If a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that
ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4 and 6—19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9