Ex Parte Zheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 18, 2017

12388901 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2017)

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.
12/388,901 02/19/2009 Yu Zheng 326004.01 2301
69316 7590 09/20/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
NAJARIAN, LENA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YU ZHENG, LIZHU ZHANG, XING XIE,
and WEI-YING MA
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
Technology Center 3600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a non-final rejection of
claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to identifying interesting locations
in a given geospatial location by modeling the location histories of multiple
individuals who travelled through the region of interest, and identifying
interesting locations in the region based on the number of individuals
visiting a location weighted in terms of the travel experience of those
individuals. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented process for identifying interesting
locations in a geospatial region, comprising:
using a computer to perform the following process actions,
receiving location histories of multiple individuals comprising a
log of periodically captured geospatial locations which were visited
by one or more of the individuals in the geospatial region over a
period of time,
modeling the location histories of the multiple individuals who
travelled through the region,
identifying interesting locations in the region using the modeled
location histories based on a number of individuals visiting a location
in the region weighted in terms of the travel experience of the
2
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
individuals visiting the location, said travel experience of an
individual being based on the number of locations that individual has
visited in the region in the past, and
generating a list of the interesting locations identified in the region.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Vengroff US 2009/0005987 A1 Jan. 1,2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claim 1—15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Vengroff.
Claims 2—6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vengroff and Official Notice.
ISSUES
The pivotal issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding:
1. claims 1—15 are directed to an abstract idea; and
2. Vengroff discloses interesting locations in the region are identified
“based on a number of individuals visiting a location in the region
weighted in terms of the travel experience of the individuals
visiting the location’’ and that the travel experience of an individual
is “based on the number of locations that individual has visited in
the region in the past” as required by claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
ANALYSIS
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101
Appellants argue that claim 1 represents physical geospatial locations
visited by individuals over a period of time, and thus, do not constitute an
abstract idea (App. Br. 10). According to Appellants the electronic data are
transformed through a series of actions into a list of the interesting locations
(i.e., physical locations) in the geospatial region (App. Br. 10). Appellants
assert that the claim amendment of “identifying interesting locations in the
region using the modeled location histories” provides a direct connection
between the receipt of the geospatial locations electronic data and its
transformation into the list of interesting locations in the region (App. Br.
10).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Whether an
invention is patent-eligible is an issue of law, which we will review de novo.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The
Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include implicit
exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are
not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296—97
(2012)). We must first determine whether the claim 1 is “directed to” a
patent-ineligible abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (“On their face,
4
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement,
i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application
explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”); Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—595 (1978) (“Respondent’s application simply
provides a new and presumably better method for calculating alarm limit
values”).
Examples of patent-ineligible subject matter include fundamental
economic practices {Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611),
mathematical formulas {Flook, 437 U.S. at 594—95) and basic tools of
scientific and technological work {Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)).
Appellants’ claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented process for
identifying interesting locations in a geospatial region by weighing the travel
experience of individuals who previously visited the locations. With regard
to the first step in Alice, Appellants electronic data transformed through a
series of actions into a list of the interesting locations (i.e., physical
locations) in the geospatial region (App. Br. 10), amount to nothing more
than a computer implemented algorithm of weighing data to provide a
recommendation. Alternatively, the computer implemented method
substitutes for the mental processes of a travel agent or a concierge who
based on information from prior customers can provide recommendations to
new clients.
Therefore, since claim 1 is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract
idea, we then consider the elements of the claim—both individually and as
an ordered combination—to assess whether the additional elements
5
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the
abstract idea as required by step two of Alice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
This is a search for an “inventive concept”—an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more”
than the abstract idea itself. Id. “[T]he relevant question is whether the
claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea ... on a generic computer. "Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at
2359. We conclude that they do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is conventional. Using a computer to
receive input and generate information from the input to provide the
resulting information (i.e., identifying interesting locations in the region)
constitute basic computer functions. Each method step does no more than
require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Furthermore, when considering claims purportedly directed to an
improvement of computer functionality, the inquiry becomes “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.” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335—36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the instant
claim 1, the computer implemented method is merely used as a tool to
execute a mathematical formula of weighing input data to provide a solution
of a recommendation. Furthermore, collecting information from individuals
who previously visited the locations, does not make the content any less
abstract because collecting information limited to particular content is within
6
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
the realm of abstract ideas. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Accordingly, we sustain the ineligible subject matter rejection of
claims 1—15.
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as anticipated by
Vengroff
Appellants argue that Vengroff does not disclose that interesting
locations in the region are identified “based on a number of individuals
visiting a location in the region weighted in terms of the travel
experience of the individuals visiting the location1'’ and that the travel
experience of an individual is “based on the number of locations that
individual has visited in the region in the past” as required by claim 1 (App.
Br. 15). According to Appellants the travel experience of Vengroff s users
is not even mentioned (App. Br. 15). Rather, the Vengroff scheme identifies
interesting locations solely based on the number of visitors to a location
(App. Br. 15). Appellants further state that Vengroff s paragraph 76
mention of weighting has nothing to do with a user’s visit based on their
travel experience (App. Br. 16). Appellants further clarify in the Reply
Brief, claim 1 ’s weighting will affect the identification of interesting
locations differently than the Vengroff scheme, which counts each visitor to
a location the same whether they have visited the region containing the
location once or twice, or many times (Reply Br. 4).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. Vengroff discloses that
“p(Lv) represents the prior probability distribution of visits to Lv or its
‘popularity’ which we can approximate by the to-date observed frequency of
visits and refine as likely new visits are detected, while p(VLi) is the prior
distribution of visits by the specific user to the location1'’ (para. 76). Thus,
7
Appeal 2016-006442
Application 12/388,901
there is consideration of the number of visits at the specific location.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2—6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Vengroff and Official Notice
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—6 and 9 for the same
reasons as discussed supra because Appellants repeat substantially the same
arguments as those raised for claim 1 (App. Br. 17—18).
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in the Examiner erred in finding:
1. claims 1—15 are directed to an abstract idea; and
2. Vengroff discloses interesting locations in the region are
identified “based on a number of individuals visiting a location in
the region weighted in terms of the travel experience of the
individuals visiting the location1'’ and that the travel experience of
an individual is “based on the number of locations that individual
has visited in the region in the past” as required by claim 1.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 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