Ex Parte PfaffDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201713329744 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/329,744 12/19/2011 Matthias Pfaff P5778US00 2176 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C. 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER SHINGLES, KRISTIE D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHIAS PFAFF Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 5, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed November 2, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 4, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 18, 2015). 2 Claims 21—48 were cancelled previously. Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 INVENTION Appellant’s invention is directed to initiating a computing task based on a generated statement or question formed using user context information. Spec. 11. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1. 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: a dynamic generation of one or more elements of at least one question based, at least in part, on an input from a device specifying at least one term, and at least one determination of context information associated with the device, a user of the device, one or more other devices, one or more other users, or a combination thereof; a rendering of the one or more elements of the at least one question in a user interface; and a dynamic adaptation of a mapping interface based, at least in part, on an adaptation of the one or more elements of the at least one question. Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis and van Zwol. Final Act. 4—7. REFERENCES van Zwol et al. Davis et al. US 2011/0173572 Al July 14, 2011 US 2012/0078938 Al Mar. 29, 2012 REJECTION 2 Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 ISSUES The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis and van Zwol turns on (1) whether the combination of Davis and van Zwol teaches “a dynamic generation of one or more elements of at least one question based, at least in part, on an input from a device specifying at least one term,” and (2) whether the combination of Davis and van Zwol teaches “a dynamic adaptation of a mapping interface based, at least in part, on an adaptation of the one or more elements of the at least one question.” ANALYSIS Claims 1—20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis and van Zwol Appellant argues that Davis fails to teach a dynamic generation of one or more elements of at least one question based, at least in part, on an input from a device specifying at least one term, as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 4—10; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellant argues that although Davis discloses an image or video clip input where the process automatically formats a question, Davis “simply does not explicitly or implicitly explain or disclose that the ‘input’ of Davis ‘specifies at least one term.’” App. Br. 4-9 (citing Davis 1126). Further, Appellant argues that Davis teaches only the initial image/video input without varying elements or questions and asserts “[wjithout different elements no ‘dynamic generation’ need occur.” App. Br. 9. In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant further argues that Davis teaches a modified question which was not input from a device as claimed, asserting the Examiner unreasonably expanded the concept of the 3 Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 input question to be the modified question. Reply Br. 2 (citing Davis 128, 130). Consequently, Appellant concludes that the combination of Davis and van Zwol fails to disclose dynamic generation of one or more elements of at least one question based, at least in part, on an input from a device specifying at least one term. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds that Davis discloses a process where a modified question is generated based on an original question with at least one term and context information. Final Act. 4 (citing Davis ^fl[ 100—101, 127—128). The Examiner further finds that the question generating process is dynamic since the context information used to modify the question is gathered dynamically from the user’s network. Final Act. 4. In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner explains that Appellant relied on a narrow teaching in Davis regarding the image/video input and finds that additional embodiments disclose generating a query with criteria involving extracting keywords and metadata from the query that forms additional questions, ranging in specificity or relating to alternative topics. Ans. 6 (citing Davis 128, 130). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner finds that Davis expressly teaches that a user might ask, “where’s a good place to eat?” Obviously, any answers referring to restaurants that are not reasonably close to the user are not useful. Thus, if the user is currently in Santa Fe, the question is actually “where’s a good place to eat in Santa Fe?” But the user might have food preferences, for example, the user might like sushi or [Thai], so the question is actually “where’s a good sushi or [Thai] restaurant in Santa Fe?” 4 Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 Davis 1100. That is, a user provides an input specifying at least one term (where’s a good place to eat) and dynamically, using context from the user, one or more elements (sushi/Thai and Santa Fe) of a question (where’s a good sushi or Thai restaurant in Santa Fe) are generated. Id. Appellant further argues that the combination of Davis and van Zwol fails to teach “a dynamic adaptation of a mapping interface based, at least in part, on an adaptation of the one or more elements of the at least one question,” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 10—12. Appellant specifically argues that van Zwol, which the Examiner relies on, is directed to “mapped geographical locations, based on an annotation,” and argues that the provided example of “Barcelona Spain” is an annotation, whereas the claims recite an element of a question. App. Br. 11. Appellant further contends that, in a search, van Zwol contemplates only keywords, whereas Davis uses a modified question and “one of ordinary skill in the art could not believe that such a keyword search [of van Zwol] would even work with the natural language questions of Davis and would instead become overloaded providing bad results with the inclusion of natural language objects.” Id. at 11—12. Further, Appellant argues the references use location information in different ways, whereas van Zwol specifies different locations and Davis only uses the user location information. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds Davis teaches a mapping feature where location information can be associated with context data or the keyword of a question, where keywords and context data are elements of a question that efficiently provide location information related to elements of the question. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 6; see also Davis 1102. The Examiner further finds that van Zwol teaches associating keywords or a search with locations on a 5 Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 map. Ans. 6; see also van Zwol 143. Further, the Examiner finds that the combination of Davis and van Zwol would have “provided a way to allow the user to easily locate points of interest in a map using mapping application.” Final Act. 5. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. As discussed above, Davis discloses that a user pulls out a PDA to make a query, and the device automatically pops up a map of the station with the nearest bathrooms already indicated on the map. . . . [However,] if a user’s path history shows that the user never uses train station bathrooms, it might display taxis or the nearest hotel or fast food bathroom depending on my individual data history and profile. Davis 1102. That is, Davis teaches an example where mapping can occur both at the user’s location or somewhere remote to the user, taking into account the user context elements with the query. Van Zwol teaches a display interface where “[b]ased on the keywords of the search query, a set of locations is identified and presented to the user on a world map.” Van Zwol 143. As such, Davis teaches mapping locations based on context data or keywords and in the same way that van Zwol teaches presenting a location to a user on a world map based on the keywords of the search query. Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 6. Accordingly, the combination of Davis and van Zwol teach “a dynamic adaptation of a mapping interface based, at least in part, on an adaptation of the one or more elements of the at least one question,” as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim 11 recites similar features to claim 1. Claims 2—10 and 12—20 depend from 6 Appeal 2016-007042 Application 13/329,744 claims 1 and 11, respectively. Appellant did not provide separate arguments for claims 2—20, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2—20. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Davis and van Zwol. DECISION We affirm the rejections of claims 1—20. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation