Ex Parte Kasterstein et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 13, 2018

14301807 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2018)

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.
14/301,807 06/11/2014 Rami KASTERSTEIN DO AT P0048 3478
122066 7590
M&B IP Analysts, LLC
500 Headquarters Plaza
Morristown, NJ 07960-7070
02/15/2018 EXAMINER
LODHI, ANDALIB FT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/15/2018 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):
pair@mb-ip.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAMI KASTERSTEIN, AMIHAY BEN-DAVID, and
JOEY JOSEPH SIMHON
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,80V1
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify DOAT MEDIA LTD. as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,807
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to
customizing a user query in order to receive optimized search results
respective of the query. (Abstract.) Claims 1,11, and 21 are independent.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method for customizing a user query, comprising:
determining a user intent of at least one query received
from a user device;
selecting at least one source from a plurality of sources of
information, the selected at least one source being appropriate for
serving the user intent;
classifying the received at least one query based on the
determined user intent;
customizing the query to optimally serve the user intent
based on the classification and the determined user intent; and
sending the customized query to the selected at least one
source, wherein each of the selected at least one source receives
an appropriately customized query format.
(App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix 1).)
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5-12, 15-22, and 25-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koo (US 2006/0136403 Al,
pub. June 22, 2006), in view of Gross et al. (US 2006/0064411 Al, pub.
Mar. 23, 2006) (hereinafter “Gross”). (Final Act. 7).
The Examiner rejected claims 3,4, 13, 14, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Koo, in view of Gross and Flynt et al. (US
2
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,807
2007/0082707 Al, pub. Apr. 12, 2007) (hereinafter “Flynt”). (Final Act.
12).
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
dispositive issue2:
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Koo and
Gross teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitations,
selecting at least one source from a plurality of sources of
information, the selected at least one source being appropriate for
serving the user intent,
and
sending the customized query to the selected at least one
source, wherein each of the selected at least one source receives
an appropriately customized query format,
and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 11 and 21. (App.
Br. 6-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 16, 2016) (herein, “App
Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed May 4, 2017) (herein, “Reply Br.”); the Final
Office Action (mailed May 19, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); the Advisory
Action (mailed Oct. 5, 2016) (herein, “Adv. Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed Mar. 9, 2017) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,807
2-11), (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 1-2), and (3) the corresponding findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2-7.) We concur with the applicable
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding the combination of Koo and Gross teaches or suggests the
limitations of the claims at issue, the Examiner relies, inter alia, on the
disclosure in Koo, in which user-entered symptoms of a health ailment (such
as “cough”) are used to refine a search query to derive a diagnosis. (Final
Act 7; Ans. 3—4; Koo 23, 25.) The Examiner further relies on the
disclosure of Gross of (1) a unique type of record displayed on a search
results page where a sponsor or other party has provided specific
information to be displayed as a result to a query of a search engine, (2) a
user behavior search engine having a plurality of display pages, and (3)
selection of appropriate page type. (Final Act. 4-5; Ans. 4-5; Gross 39,
87-94.)
Appellants argue that “Gross cannot be reasonably interpreted as
suggesting selecting at least one source that is appropriate for serving the
user intent and sending a query to the selected at least one source” (App. Br.
8) because “at best, Gross teaches sending a query to at least one search
engine, receiving search results from the at least one source, and selecting a
received search result that is appropriate for serving the user intent.” (App.
Br. 9.) Appellants further contend “the page display types of Gross” teach
“at best, selecting a source based on a user’s query and formatting search
results in accordance with the selected source” and that such “results as
4
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,807
described in Gross would occur after the query is sent and, thus, would not
include sending the query.” (App. Br. 11.)
We are not persuaded by these arguments. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Gross displays on a search results page “specific information
to be displayed as a result to a query of a search engine.” (Ans. 4, citing
Gross ^ 39.) The Examiner’s findings are confirmed by the use of Gross’s
“user behavior search engine” having a “behavior search processor” that
retrieves search results or other identified resources (also
known as candidate files) from one or more sources including
one or more algorithmic search indexes. An “index” is a form
of database that recites a plurality of individual search terms
and associates each of the terms with one or more resources,
typically URLS or files, that could be relevant to the search
term. The uniform resource locator (URL) for each relevant
resource, e.g., webpage or document, may then be retrieved
from at least one algorithmic search index 172 by querying the
index with the one or more query terms.
(Gross ^ 47, emphasis added.) Here, queries are sent to search indexes. It
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Koo’s
customization of queries based on user intent with searching through Gross’s
search indices to arrive at more focused search results for presentation to the
user.3
3 We additionally note that Gross also teaches query customization as part of
its page type determination: “It may be necessary to refine a query where
the intent behind the original query cannot be discerned because the original
query is, for example, vague or ambiguous.” (Gross ^ 97.)
5
Appeal 2017-008029
Application 14/301,807
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of independent
claims 1,11, and 21, and all dependent claims not separately argued with
particularity. See App. Br. 12-14.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-28 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
6