Ex Parte Peiris et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

14925800 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/925,800 10/28/2015 Keith L. Peiris
91230 7590 07/20/2018
Baker Botts L.L.P./Facebook Inc.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 900
Dallas, TX 75201
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.
079894.3422 9754
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, CAM LINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEITH L. PEIRIS, AND PETER DENG 1
Appeal2018-000623
Application 14/925,800
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOYCE CRAIG, and JASON M. REPKO
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 and 7 through 25. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Facebook Inc.
Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal2018-000623
Application 14/925,800
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed invention is directed to a social-networking
system that may push one or more suggested search queries to a mobile
device of a user of an online social network. The suggested queries are
selected based upon the location of the mobile device. See Specification par.
6. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
1. A method comprising, by a computing device:
receiving, from a mobile-client system of a first user
associated with an online social network, an indication of a first
location of the first user;
identifying one or more objects associated with the online
social network based at least on the first location;
generating one or more suggested queries based on the
location of the first user, wherein each suggested query
comprises query tokens associated with one or more of the
identified objects;
sending, to the mobile-client system in response to
receiving the indication of the first location, a notification
comprising one or more of the suggested queries, each suggested
query being selectable by the first user to retrieve search results
corresponding to the suggested query;
receiving, from the mobile-client system, an indication the
first user has selected one of the suggested queries;
executing the selected suggested query; and
sending, to the mobile-client system in response to
receiving the indication of the selection, a plurality of search
results corresponding to the selected suggested query, wherein
each search result matches the query tokens of the selected
suggested query.
2
Appeal2018-000623
Application 14/925,800
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE2
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7 through 25 based upon non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1, 2, and 11 of U.S.
Patent No. 9,223,826. Final Act 3--4.
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 7 through 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(e) as being anticipated by Moore (US 2013/0073422 Al, published:
March 21, 2013). Final Act. 5-9.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's
rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection.
Initially, we note Appellants presented a terminal disclaimer on
October 23, 2017. This terminal disclaimer was accepted; see office
communication dated October 31, 2017. The Examiner's Final Action
identifies that the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is
overcome by the filing and acceptance of such a terminal disclaimer. Final
Act. 3. Thus, the non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting is
overcome and not before us.
With respect to the obviousness rejection, Appellants argue that the
Examiner's rejection is in error as Moore fails to teach: generating one or
more suggested queries based on the location of the first user, and sending in
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed June 26, 201 7,
Reply Brief filed October 23, 2017, Final Office Action mailed December
14, 2016, and the Examiner's Answer mailed October 2, 2017.
3
Appeal2018-000623
Application 14/925,800
response to receiving the indication of the location of the first location a
notification comprising one or more of the suggested queries as recited in
representative claim 1. App. Br. 6-11, Reply Br. 3---6. Appellants argue the
Examiner's rejection appears to be confusing search queries and search
results, and in Moore the results ( recommendations provided in response to a
query) are based upon location. App. Br. 7, 10 and 11 (citing Moore Figure
3, 5, 6, paragraphs 51-55 and 90-92). Further, Appellants argue that
Moore's categories, depicted in Figure 5 as item 501, are not equivalent to
the claimed queries as they are not generated based upon the location of the
user. App. Br. 9 (citing paragraphs 40, 88 and 90), Reply Br. 3-5.
The Examiner finds that Moore teaches providing recommended
queries in that a query is formed of one or more keywords and that the
claimed recommend query corresponds to categories depicted as element
501 in Moore's Fig. 5. Ans. 10-11 (citing paragraphs 40, 51 and Fig's 5-7).
The Examiner also finds that Moore teaches subcategories, as depicted in
Fig 6, the subcategories include "Italian," "sushi," "tacos," among others,
which also meet the claimed recommended queries. Ans. 11-13.
We concur with Appellants that the categories, shown as element 501
in Figure 5, do not meet the claimed suggested queries as Moore does not
teach the categories 501 are based on the location. However, we concur
with the Examiner's findings that the keywords meet the claimed suggested
queries based upon location. Initially, we note the claim does not preclude
the recommend query being preceded by a query, thus, Moore's
subcategories being preceded by a non-location specific query such as
Moore's element 501 query for food, is not precluded by claim 1. Moore in
describing Figure 6 states:
4
Appeal2018-000623
Application 14/925,800
In particular, interface 600 may be displayed to a user, for
instance, after the user selects one or more categories ( e.g.
food). Interface 600 may include further categories/ keywords
( e.g. categories/keywords 601) that permits the user to further
narrow the category of venues to be searched. In one
embodiment, such categories or keywords may be extracted
from information defined within the venues defined within the
location-based service .... Such categories/keywords that may
be used to narrow the search may change based on popularity,
location, frequency of search and/or any other parameter that
permits the user to find the necessary venues.
Paragraph 91. Thus, Moore teaches that the keywords are suggested and
used to further refine a search, i.e., they constitute a recommended query.
Further, Moore teaches that the keywords may change based upon location,
i.e., they are based upon location. Appellants' arguments do not address the
Examiner's findings that the subcategories meet the claimed suggested
queries based on the location. Thus, Appellants' arguments have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1,
and we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 7 through 25.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 7 through 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
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
5