Ex Parte Humphreys

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2018

13647666 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/647,666 10/09/2012
34282 7590 08/23/2018
QUARLES & BRADY LLP (TUC)
Attn: IP Docket
ONE SOUTH CHURCH A VENUE, SUITE 1700
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1621
Lloyd Humphreys
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
121931.00045-P/46953 4152
EXAMINER
ZAMAN, SADARUZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2018 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):
pat-dept@quarles.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LLOYD HUMPHREYS
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
Technology Center 3700
Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, LISA M. GUIJT, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4 and 7-18, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Claims 5 and 6 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the Real Party in Interest as Breaking Free Online
Limited. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an interactive system for use in connection
with the identification and/or management of psychological issues. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An interactive system for use m connection with the
identification and/or management of psychological issues
compnsmg:
a user terminal comprising:
a display unit;
user actuable input means; and
an associated interface engine wherein the display unit and
user actuable input means are operable under the control of the
interface engine to display one or more structured user interfaces
and receive user inputs to said structured user interfaces and
wherein the plurality of structured user interfaces includes one or
more psychological data input interfaces;
a management engine operable to:
receive inputs from the user terminal;
process user inputs relating to any one of the one or more
psychological data input interfaces and thereby formulate a
classification of psychological issues based on said received user
inputs;
wherein the interface engine is subsequently operable in
response to the management engine classification to generate and
display a classification interface comprising a plurality of
selectable indicator areas, each indicator area relating to a
particular category of psychological issues identified in the
classification, the appearance of each indicator area varying in
accordance with the severity of issues within the corresponding
category; and
wherein selection of an indicator area within the
classification interface causes the interface engine to retrieve
additional information related to the corresponding category of
psychological issues and output said additional information to
said display unit for display; and
wherein the additional information comprises one or more
issue specific structured data interfaces operable to enable the
2
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
user to generate a real or virtual map, said map being a
diagrammatic representation of an area of land or sea, and
including one or more difficult situation locations on said map.
REJECTION
Claims 1--4 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ANALYSIS
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014 ), the Supreme Court identifies a two-step framework for determining
whether claimed subject matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. According to the first step of this analysis, "[w]e
must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If
the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the second step includes
determining whether the claims include 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."' Id. at
2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.
Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner applies
this two-step framework. Non-Final Act. 3--4. Pursuant to the first step, the
Examiner determines the claims are directed to the abstract idea of
"organizing basic psychological issues of human activities as that relates to
the management of structured data generating real or virtual map from a
criteria data set." Id. at 3. Under the second step, the Examiner determines
3
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
the additional claim elements or combinations thereof, other than the
abstract idea per se, amount to no more than "(i) mere instructions to
implement the idea on a computer, and (ii) recitation of generic non-
specialized computer structure that serves to perform functions that are well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
pertinent industry." Id. at 4.
As to the first step of Alice, it is unclear from the Appeal Brief
whether Appellant alleges a specific error in the Examiner's determination
that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See, e.g., App. Br. 4 ("claim
1 is directed to a statutory category") .. However, in the Reply Brief,
Appellant appears to challenge the Examiner's finding that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. Reply 2. Specifically, Appellant refutes the
Examiner's comparison2 of the present claims to those in Electric Power
Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which the
claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea:
In the present case, claim 1 recites specific limitations and
computer components that are able, in combination with the
recited management engine functionality, to produce a specific
and useful result--map outputs that display locations linked to a
user's physiological issues, such as gambling or alcohol
addiction, through display of "difficult situation locations" on a
map. This unconventional functionality is an improvement in
computer-generated mapping technology because, whereas
typical display devices with a map function provide general
points of interest or guide a user to a destination, the recited
invention does the opposite by displaying places for a user to
avoid based on the user's psychological issue(s).
2 See Ans. 4.
4
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
Id. However, for the reasons below, Appellant's argument does not apprise
us of Examiner error.
In determining whether claims are directed to excluded subject matter,
e.g., an abstract idea, under the first step of the Alice analysis, 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."' 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)). For computer-implemented inventions in particular, such as the
present invention, "the first step in the Alice inquiry ... asks whether the
focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea'
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1335-36.
Here, independent claim 1 recites a system for managing
psychological issues, wherein a management engine receives user-inputted
data relating to the user's psychological issues, and, in combination with an
interface engine and a display unit, generates an interface comprising
selectable indicator areas relating to the user's psychological issues, wherein
selecting a particular indicator enables the user to generate a real or virtual
map on the display unit, the map including one or more difficult situation
locations thereon. App. Br. A-1. As such, the invention results in an
interactive display of information on a map, including specific locations
related to the user's psychological issues.
Independent claim 1 further recites computing components, such as a
display unit, an interface engine, and a management engine. App. Br. A-1.
5
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
However, the Specification does not describe any improvement to the
computing components. Rather, the Specification explains that the
invention relates to "the identification and/or management of psychological
issues." Spec. 1. According to the Specification, traditional strategies for
managing psychological problems ( e.g., pharmaceutical, therapy, support
groups, books, etc.) "operate on a very linear, prescriptive basis ... because
they are, by necessity, set out in advance." Id. The Specification further
explains that the claimed invention allows a user to "readily identify their
psychological issues and[] subsequently embark on a non-linear
management strategy in relation to selected psychological issues as they
desire." Id.at 3.
In light of the above, the claimed invention uses the recited computer
infrastructure to receive information from a user, process it, and present to
the user in a useful format. Therefore, the focus of the claimed invention is
not on an improvement in computer capabilities, but rather on using
computer components to manage a user's psychological issues by using
those components merely as tools. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner's determination that the character of independent claim 1, as a
whole, is directed to an abstract idea. Non-Final Act. 3.
Seeing no error in the Examiner's determination under the first step of
Alice, we tum to Appellant's arguments under the second step. Appellant
argues the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because:
[T]he recited invention addresses the technology-centric
challenge of providing a user with time-sensitive "difficult
situation location" information when the user is navigating an
unfamiliar geographical location using a device that displays a
6
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
real or virtual map. Whereas typical display devices with a map
function provide general points of interest or guide a user to a
destination, the present invention does the opposite by pointing
out places for a user to avoid based on the user's psychological
issue(s).
App. Br. 4--5. Appellant's rationale for why the claims satisfy the second
step of Alice is similar to Appellant's rationale for why the claims satisfy the
first step of Alice. That is, as to both steps, Appellant argues that because the
claims define "an improvement in computer-generated mapping technology"
(Reply 2) that is "technology-centric," (App. Br. 4), "technologically rooted"
(Reply 3), and "unconventional" (App. Br. 5; Reply 2), the invention is,
therefore, patent-eligible. We disagree.
The fact that the claimed invention is implemented on a computer
does not support the notion that it is "technologically rooted," solves a
"technology-centric" problem, or that it constitutes an "improvement" to the
mapping technology on which it relies. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358
("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."' (internal citation omitted) ( quoting
Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297)). Furthermore, Appellant's argument does not
apprise us of error in the Examiner's finding that the claimed use of generic
computing components is conventional To the extent Appellant is arguing
that the claimed subject matter is novel or nonobvious (i.e., because of the
lack of prior art rejections), the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework,
although termed a search for an "inventive concept," is not an evaluation of
novelty or non-obviousness. Rather, the second step is a search for "an
7
Appeal2017-008022
Application 13/647,666
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, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. A novel and
nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-
ineligible. See Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1304.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's determination that the
claimed elements, alone or in combination, do no amount to "significantly
more" so as to remove the claimed subject matter from the realm of the
abstract idea.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination that the claims are patent ineligible. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Because Appellant
does not provide separate arguments as to the dependent claims, we likewise
sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4 and 7-18.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 7-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8