Ex Parte Soffer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

14387607 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/387,607 09/24/2014
47795 7590 07/31/2018
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS RD., SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronen Aharon Soffer
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.
ITL.3162US (P64050US) 8415
EXAMINER
PEREZ, JULIO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
tphpto@tphm.com
Inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONEN AHARON SOFFER and AMIR YESSACHAR1
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
Technology Center 2600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 68-87. Claims 1-67 have been
canceled. Final Act. 1-2; Appeal Br. 1. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corp. Appeal Br.
2.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Sept. 24, 2014
(claiming benefit of PCT/IB2013/052016 filed Mar. 14, 2013 and several
provisional applications including US 61/649,938 filed May 22, 2012);
Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Mar. 17, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply
Br.") filed Sept. 11, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal generally concerns mobile computing
and communication devices-specifically personal digital assistants
(apparatuses and computer-readable media) for providing location-based
assistance. The apparatus includes memory, which further includes a data
structure, a user interface, and a processor configured to maintain the data
structure and generate a map indicating targets within an area of relevance
surrounding the present location of the user, and to provide, based on the
map, via the user interface, a suggestion to the user of an action to be taken
by the user with respect to one or more of the targets. Spec. 1 :9--1 O; 1 :20-
5 :30; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 68, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
68. An apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to hold a data structure that is
indicative of a state of a user of the apparatus, wherein the state
of the user is at least partially based on a geo-cognitive distance
measuring a level of familiarity of the user with a present
location of the user;
a user interface comprising a display; and
a processor configured to maintain the data structure and
responsive to the state, to generate a map indicating targets
within an area of relevance surrounding the present location of
the user, and to provide, based on the map, via the user interface,
Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Oct. 17, 2016, and Answer
("Ans.") mailed July 10, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
a suggestion to the user of an action to be taken by the user with
respect to one or more of the targets.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 68-82 and 85 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Busch (US 2008/0248815 Al,
published Oct. 9, 2008).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 83 and 84 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Busch and Platt et al. (US
2010/0088143 Al, published Apr. 8, 2010) ("Platt").
3. The Examiner rejects claims 86 and 87 under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Busch and Creemer (US
7,873,372 B2, issued Jan.18, 2011).
ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issues before us are as follows:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested:
a processor configured . . . to generate a map indicating
targets within an area of relevance surrounding the present
location of the user, and to provide ... a suggestion to the user
of an action to be taken by the user with respect to one or more
of the targets
within the meaning of Appellants' claim 68 and the commensurate
limitations of claims 77 and 85?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested a processor "configured to detect the present location of the
user, and to categorize the detected location," as recited in claim 69?
3
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested a processor "configured to assess, responsive to a category of
the detected location, the geo-cognitive distance between the user and the
detected location," as recited in claim 70?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested a processor "configured to identify an intended destination ...
and an estimated time of arrival ... , and to suggest, responsive to the state
of motion and the estimated time of arrival, a diversion to one of the targets
en route to the intended destination," within the meaning of Appellants'
claim 72 and the commensurate limitations of claims 80?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested a processor "configured to analyze a behavior of the user
relative to the temporal routine in order to assess a state of mind of the user,
and to choose the suggestion to be provided responsive to the state of mind,"
as recited in claim 7 4?
6. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested a processor "configured to analyze user responses to
suggestions provided via the user interface in order to derive user
preferences, and to apply the user preferences together with the state of the
user in generation of the suggestion," as recited in claim 75?
7. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested "identification of a means of transport by which the user is
traveling, including whether the user is traveling in a private vehicle or on
public transport," as recited in claim 78?
4
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
8. Did the Examiner err in finding that Busch would have taught
or suggested "a recommendation to the user of an alternative means of
transport," as recited in claim 79?
ANALYSIS
Claims 68, 71, 73, 76, 77, 81, 82, and 85
Appellants argue independent claims 68, 77, and 85, and dependent
claims 71, 73, 7 6, 77, 81, and 82, together as a group with respect to the
§ 103(a) rejection. See Appeal Br. 8.
The Examiner rejects representative independent claim 68 as being
obvious over Busch. See Final Act. 5-7; Ans. 2--4. The Examiner cites
Busch as teaching a map that indicates targets and provides suggestions of
actions to be taken with respect to the targets. See Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 2--4
(citing Busch ,r,r 312,316,345,347,351,352,367,369,378,379; Figs. 2D,
1 lA, 13A). Appellants contend that Busch does not teach the disputed
limitation of claim 68. See Appeal Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 1--4. Specifically,
Appellants contend Busch does not describe (show) a map indicating
relevant targets surrounding the present location of the user (see Appeal Br.
9-10; Reply Br. 3) and does not describe a suggestion to be taken by the
user with respect to at least one of the targets (see Appeal Br. 10-11).
We disagree with Appellants that Busch does not teach the disputed
features of claim 68. Expanding on the Examiner's findings and reasoning
(supra), we find Busch describes a map indicating a target (business) and
various actions with respect to the target (see Busch ,r,r 417, 418; Figs. 14A
and 14B; see also Busch ,r,r 378, 379, 399). Specifically, with respect to
Figure 14A, Busch describes a map (shown in the top portion of the figure)
5
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
indicating the mobile device's (user's) current location and a business of
interest to the user (1406) (i.e., a target), as well as options (actions)
available to the user with respect to the business-such as requesting
information on the business, calling the business, and/ or adding the business
as a destination. See Busch ,r 417. Thus we find Busch at least suggests the
disputed features of Appellants' claim 68-"a map indicating targets ...
surrounding the present location of the user, and ... provid[ing] ... a
suggestion to the user of an action to be taken ... with respect to one or
more of the targets."
Accordingly, Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of error in
the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim
68. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of representative claim
68, independent claims 77 and 85, that include limitations of commensurate
scope, and dependent claims 71, 73, 76, 77, 81, and 82, not separately
argued with particularity (supra).
Claim 69
Appellants provide nominal separate arguments with respect to
dependent claim 69. Specifically, Appellants contend Busch "fails to
disclose or suggest detecting and categorizing a location." Appeal Br. 11;
see Reply Br. 4. We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 4--5) that Busch at
least suggests "detect[ing] the present location of the user, and ...
categoriz[ing] the detected location" ( claim 69). Busch describes
determining a present location of a device utilizing GPS information (see
Busch ,r,r 334, 337) and determining if the present location is within the
perimeter of a business (i.e., categorizing (classifying/identifying) the
present location as being a business and/or within the geographic confines of
6
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
a business) (see Busch ,r,r 338, 347). Additionally, Busch describes
categorizing locations-"types of businesses that [a] user typically visits"
(see Busch ,r 345). Appellants argue that "the perimeter of a location is not a
category of a location, but rather is a definition of the location itself' (Reply
Br. 4), but do not explain why matching a present location with a business
location and correlating locations with types of businesses visited do not at
least suggest categorizing the present location as a business ( or type of
business), as proffered by the Examiner. Thus, Appellants' contentions do
not persuade us of error in the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
dependent claim 69. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of
claim 69.
Claim 70
Appellants also provide nominal separate arguments with respect to
dependent claim 70. Specifically, Appellants contend "the Answer fails to
explain or even address how Busch is alleged to disclose assessing a geo-
cognitive distance responsive to the 'location perimeter' (i.e., the asserted
category)." Reply Br. 4; see Appeal Br. 12.
We note that Appellants do not dispute that Busch describes
determining "a geo-cognitive distance measuring a level of familiarity of the
user with a present location," as recited in claim 68. See Final Act. 5 ( citing
Busch ,r,r 345, 347, 351, 352). In other words, it is undisputed that Busch
describes the claim 68 feature of determining a geo-cognitive distance-that
is, a level of familiarity measurement of the user-with the present location
7
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
of the user's mobile device. Also, as discussed previously with respect to
claim 69 (supra), Busch categorizes a present location.
Appellants do not persuasively explain how or why Busch does not at
least suggest "assess[ing], responsive to a category of the detected location,
the geo-cognitive distance between the user and the detected location"
( claim 70). Busch describes categorizing locations ("types of businesses")
that a user typically frequents. See Busch ,r 345. Frequency (how often one
visits an establishment) is a measure of familiarity. See id. Thus, we find
Busch at least suggests assessing the geo-cognitive distance of (user's
familiarity with) the present (detected) location responsive to a category.
We agree with the Examiner that Busch at least suggests relating the geo-
cognitive distance and the determination that the location is within a
business ( categorization of a location) (see Final Act. 7; Ans. 5-6, ( citing
Busch ,r,r 334,337, 338, 347)). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 70.
Claims 72 and 80
The Examiner rejects dependent claims 72 and 80 as obvious over
Busch. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 6-7. Claim 72 further defines the processor
of claim 68 (and dependent claims 69, 70, and 71), reciting that the
processor "identify ... an estimated time of arrival at the intended
destination, and ... suggest, responsive to the state of motion and the
estimated time of arrival, a diversion to one of the targets en route to the
intended destination."
The Examiner finds that "Busch discloses identifying an intended
destination of the user and an estimated time of arrival at the intended
destination" (Ans. 6-7 ( citing Busch ,r,r 351, 352); see Final Act. 8, 13), as
8
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
well as "displaying targeted content for business location[ s] on the mobile
device ... while en route ... to a (intended) destination" (Ans. 7 (citing
Busch ,r,r 351,352), i.e., "a diversion to one of the targets en route to the
intended destination" (id.). Appellants contend "the Answer fails to explain
or even address how Busch is alleged to disclose an estimated time of
arrival, or suggesting a diversion responsive to the estimated time of
arrival." Reply Br. 5; see Appeal Br. 12-13.
We agree with the Examiner that Busch describes "predictive
navigation" (Busch ,r 3 51 ), as well as providing content for business
locations along a predicted route and time spent at a location (business) (see
Busch ,r 352}-i.e., a suggested diversion. See Final Act. 8; Ans. 6-7 (citing
Busch ,r,r 351,352). The Examiner, however, does not sufficiently explain
how Busch's predictive navigation describes an estimated time of arrival or
how the suggested diversion is responsive to an estimated time of arrival.
Without further explanation, we are left to speculate on how Busch describes
an estimated time of arrival and how the suggested business relates to an
estimated time of arrival.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Busch renders the disputed features of
Appellants' claim 72 and 80 obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 72 and 80.
Claim 74
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 7 4 as obvious over Busch. See
Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7-8. Claim 74 further defines the processor of claim 68
(and dependent claim 73), reciting that the processor "analyze a behavior of
the user relative to the temporal routine ... to assess a state of mind of the
9
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
user, and to choose the suggestion to be provided responsive to the state of
mind."
The Examiner finds that "Busch discloses analyzing behavior ( or state
of mind) of the user" and "determines routes previously taken by user," i.e.,
"determines areas and routes that user typically travels (habits or routine) in
order to assess a state of mind of the user" "and anticipates routes that user is
taking, assessing state of the user" and chooses "the suggestion to be
provided responsive to the state of mind ... where routes already known are
anticipated and recommended to user" (Ans. 8 ( citing Busch ,r,r 350-352)).
Appellants contend the Examiner improperly rejected claim 74 and that
Busch does not describe the features of claim 74. See Appeal Br. 13-14;
Reply Br. 6-7. Specifically, Appellants contend:
the Answer has mapped (i) "a behavior of the user," (ii) "a state
of mind of the user," and (iii) the "temporal routine" to a single
element of Busch, namely the routes which "the user of the
mobile device typically travels." However, these three elements
are distinct elements of the claims, and therefore cannot be
interpreted as being disclosed by a single element of Bush.
Reply Br. 6.
We disagree with Appellants' contentions. In particular, we agree
with the Examiner that Busch describes "predictive navigation" (Busch ,r
351 ). See Final Act. 8-9; Ans. 7-8. Additionally, Appellants do not dispute
that Busch describes "automatically leam[ing] a temporal routine of the user,
and [ evaluating] the state of the user with respect to the routine" as recited in
claim 73, which the Examiner maintains is taught by Busch's predictive
navigation. See Final Act. 8 (citing Busch ,r,r 350-352). Claim 74 adds the
additional requirement of "assess[ing] a state of mind of the user" based on
the user's analyzed behavior (with respect to the routine) and "choos[ing]
10
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
the suggestion to be provided responsive to the state of mind." Busch
analyzes a user's behavior (driving velocity and direction) (see Busch
,r 350), predicts a route based on previous travel (see Busch ,r 351), and
provides suggestions to be taken with respect to businesses along the
predicted route (see Busch ,r 352). As previously explained with respect to
claim 68 (supra), Busch suggests actions. The suggestions provided depend
on the user's behavior, which the Examiner equates with state of mind. See
Ans. 7-8. We agree with the Examiner that analyzing driving behavior in
conjunction with a predicted route and providing suggested actions, as at
least suggested by Busch (see Busch ,r,r 350-352), indicates choosing
suggested actions to be provided based on a user's state of mind. Appellants
fail to persuasively distinguish a user's state of mind determined based on
behavior from Busch's predictive navigation based on driving behavior.
Further, Appellants do not persuasively explain why providing suggested
actions ( e.g., the suggestion action of calling a business or choosing a
particular business as a new destination-see discussion of claim 68, supra)
utilizing predictive navigation does not at least suggest choosing a suggested
action responsive to the user's state of mind. Accordingly, we affirm the
Examiner's rejection of claim 74.
Claim 75
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 75 as obvious over Busch. See
Final Act. 9; Ans. 9. Claim 75 recites a processor configured to "analyze
user responses to suggestions provided via the user interface ... to derive
11
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
user preferences, and to apply the user preferences together with the state of
the user in generation of the suggestion."
The Examiner finds that "Busch discloses analyzing user responses to
suggestions" and that Busch "discloses user's queries are analyzed to
determine routes" and, therefore, Busch "analyze[ s] user response[ s] to
suggestions" (Ans. 9 (citing Busch ,r,r 350,351). Appellants contend Busch
does not describe the features of claim 75 and that the Examiner's reasoning
is faulty-"analyzing a user's queries clearly does not disclose or suggest
user responses to suggestions provided via the user interface" (Reply Br.
7). See Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 7.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. It is unclear from the
cited portions of Busch (see Busch ,r,r 350-352) how Busch discloses or
suggests analyzing responses to suggestions provided via a user interface.
The Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Busch's analysis of location
queries describes analyzing a user's responses to suggested actions. Without
further explanation, we are left to speculate as to how Busch describes
analyzing user responses to previously suggested actions provided to a user
via the user interface, determining ( deriving) user preferences from the
responses, and applying the user preferences (and the state of the user) to
generate a suggestion.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Busch renders the disputed features of
12
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
Appellants' claim 75 obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 75.
Claim 78
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 78 as obvious over Busch. See
Final Act. 12-13; Ans. 9-10. Claim 78 depends from independent claim 77
(not separately argued (supra)), which recites "a processor" that
"determine[ s] a motion-related state of the user." Claim 78 in tum recites
the "motion-related state comprises an identification of a means of transport
by which the user is traveling, including whether the user is traveling in a
private vehicle or on public transport." Appellants provide nominal separate
arguments with respect to dependent claim 78. Specifically, Appellants
contend "Busch is silent regarding an identification of whether the user is
traveling in a private vehicle or on public transport." Reply Br. 8; see
Appeal Br. 15.
We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 9-10) that Busch describes
"determin[ing] the user's mode of transportation," which "may be walking,
jogging, biking, riding a motorcycle, driving a car, air travel, or any other
mode of transportation." Busch ,r 356 (emphasis added). Although the cited
portion of Busch does not explicitly disclose identifying whether the means
of transport is public or private (see Busch ,r 356), as pointed out by the
Examiner, different means of transport may generally indicate public or
private ownership. See Ans. 10. For example a train (which is not explicitly
disclosed by Busch) would implicate a public means of transport.
Furthermore, Busch contemplates determining any mode of transport. See
Busch ,r 356. Such a determination may, for example, include an indication
13
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
of public or private transportation----e.g., determining a user is on a public
subway train, a city-owned (public) bus, or the user's (private) car.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Busch at least suggests
determining or identifying "a means of transport by which the user is
traveling, including whether the user is traveling in a private vehicle or on
public transport" ( claim 78). Appellants do not explain why determining a
mode of transport, as taught by Busch, does not at least suggest identifying a
means of transport including an indication of whether the user is traveling in
a private vehicle or via public transportation, as proffered by the Examiner.
Nor do Appellants explain how including such an indication in the
determination of the transport mode (as taught by Busch) would be beyond
the skill of one skilled in the art. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
including a public/private ownership indication as proffered by the Examiner
would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art" at the time of Appellants' invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citingKSRint'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,417,419 (2007)). Thus, Appellants'
contentions do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 78. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 78.
Claim 79
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 79 as obvious over Busch. See
Final Act. 13; Ans. 10-11. Claim 79 recites "[ t ]he apparatus according to
14
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
claim 78, wherein the suggestion comprises a recommendation to the user of
an alternative means of transport."
Appellants contend Busch does not describe the features of claim
79-"Busch is silent regarding any recommendation to the user, much less a
recommendation of an alternative means of transport" (Reply Br. 9), and that
the Examiner misconstrued Busch's disclosure (see id.). See Appeal Br. 15-
16; Reply Br. 9.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. It is unclear from the
cited portions of Busch how Busch discloses or suggests recommending an
alternative means of transport to the user. The Examiner does not
sufficiently explain how adjusting the targeted content displayed to the user
based upon a determination of the transport mode (see Busch ,r 356)
describes recommending an alternate form of transportation. Without
further explanation, we are left to speculate on how Busch describes the
recited features of claim 79.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Busch renders the disputed features of
Appellants' claim 79 obvious. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 79.
Claims 83 and 84
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 83 and 84, or the
obviousness rejection of the claims over Busch and Platt. See Appeal Br.
16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims
83 and 84 for the same reasons as claims 68 and 77 (supra).
15
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
Claim 86
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 86 as obvious over Busch and
Creemer. See Final Act. 18-19; Ans. 14. Claim 86 depends from
independent claim 85 (not separately argued (supra)), which recites
"determine[ing] a motion-related state of the user." Claim 86 additionally
recites the "motion-related state comprises an identification of a means of
transport by which the user is traveling, including whether the user is
traveling in a private vehicle or on public transport." In short, the disputed
limitations of claim 86 are identical to the disputed limitations of claim 78
(supra). We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 14) that Busch at least
suggests the disputed features of claim 7 8 for the reasons discussed with
respect to claim 78 (supra). Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claim 86.
Claim 87
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 86 as obvious over Busch and
Creemer. See Final Act. 19; Ans. 14. The disputed limitations of claim 87
are identical to the disputed limitations of claim 79 (supra). We find
Appellants' arguments persuasive (see Appeal Br. 17-18) for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 79 (supra). Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 87.
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 68-
71, 73, 74, 76-78, and 81-86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 72, 75,
79, 80, and 87 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
16
Appeal 2017-011423
Application 14/387,607
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 68-71, 73, 74, 76-78,
and 81-86, and reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 72, 75, 79, 80,
and 87.
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-IN-PART
17