Ex Parte Zhu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2017

13306820 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 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.
13/306,820 11/29/2011 Jay J. Zhu 50277-3905 1900
42425 7590 11/22/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard VO, CECILE H
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2017 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAY J. ZHU, SUBRAMANIAN VENKATESWARAN,
ANUJ TRIVEDI, and RUPESH VERMA
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,8201
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the non-final
rejection of claims 1—3, 5—13, and 15—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 4 and 14 are indicated to be directed to allowable
subject matter. Non-Final Act. 2; App. Br. 1.
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Oracle International
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention “relates to spatial querying and, more
specifically, to processing spatial queries based on grids applied to the
domain space that is targeted by the spatial queries.” Spec. 11. Claim 1,
which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for performing a spatial query, the method
comprising:
dividing a domain space into cells by applying a grid of
grid lines to the domain space;
assigning a plurality of items that belong to the domain
space to the cells based on the location of the items
within the domain space, wherein each item of the
plurality of items is assigned to a single cell;
in response to a spatial query that specifies location
criteria, performing the steps of:
determining a query window based on the location
criteria;
producing an expanded query window whose
boundaries coincide with the gridlines of the
grid by expanding the query window;
based on the query window, separating cells that
fall within the expanded query window into
a set of fully-covered cells and a set of
partially-covered cells;
automatically adding, to a matching set for said
spatial query, items assigned to cells in the
set of fully-covered cells;
automatically disqualifying, from the matching set,
items assigned to cells outside the expanded
query window;
evaluating items assigned to cells in the set of
partially-covered cells against the location
criteria of the spatial query;
2
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
adding, to the matching set, items assigned to cells
in the set of partially-covered cells only if
the items satisfy the location criteria; and
returning the matching set;
wherein the method is performed by one or more
computing devices.
Claim 1—3, 5—9, 11—13, and 15—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2010/0085893 Al; Apr.
8, 2010; hereinafter “Kim”) and Blumenberg et al. (US 2009/0281724 Al;
Nov. 12, 2009; hereinafter “Blumenberg”). See Non-Final Act. 3—12.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim, Blumenberg, and Steinmetz et al. (US 8,136,062 B2;
Mar. 13, 2012; hereinafter “Steinmetz”). See Non-Final Act. 12—13.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 18, 2016; “Reply Br.” filed Nov. 8, 2016t) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Nov. 29, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.” mailed June 17, 2015)
and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Sept. 9, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and
conclusions of the Examiner
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is whether
the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Kim and Blumenberg
teaches or suggests “dividing a domain space into cells by applying a grid of
2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (“pre-AIA”).
Non-Final Act 3,12.
3
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
grid lines to the domain space[,] . . . determining a query window based on
the location criteria[, and] producing an expanded query window whose
boundaries coincide with the gridlines of the grid by expanding the query
window” (emphasis added), as recited in claim l.3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner maps the recited “query window” to Blumenberg’s
displayed map 502 (Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Blumenberg | 62, Fig. 5A))
and maps the recited “expanded query window” to Blumenberg’s zoomed-
out map 602 (Non-Final Act. 7 (citing Blumenberg 170, Fig. 6)). The
Examiner explains that, although Blumenberg does not mention grids and
grid lines, “grid[s] and gridlines are clearly shown in FIG. 6. Further,
mapping tools usually always use coordinates [which] is equivalent to grids;
and it is well known in the art.” Non-Final Act. 7.
In a supplemental mapping, the Examiner maps the recited “query
window” to the grid IDs determined by Kim’s analysis of a query to
determine corresponding areas (Ans. 4 (citing Kim|| 15—22, 61—63, Figs. 2,
7A-C)) and maps the recited “expanded query window” to Kim’s “larger”
Minimum Bounding Rectangle (MBR) (Ans. 4 (citing Kim’s Figs. 4, 7 A—
C)). The Examiner explains as follows:
[T[he analysis] of [a] query to determine areas corresponding to
the grid IDs for a spatial search is interpreted as determining a
query window.
3 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
4
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
In figure 4 the larger MBR . . . surrounding the child node, all
sensor nodes and parent node is interpreted as the expanded
query window, including all nodes of the search area as a set of
fully-covered cells; and the smaller MBR surrounding the child
node and all sensor nodes is interpreted as a set of partially-
covered cells; and the MBRs are also interpreted as separator to
separating fully-covered cells and a set of partially-covered cells.
Ans. 4—5.
Appellants contend that neither Blumenberg nor Kim teach “an
expanded query window whose boundaries coincide with the gridlines of the
grid,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 5—6; Reply Br. 3. We agree with
Appellants.
Blumenberg’s Figs. 5 A and 6 are reproduced below.
Blumenberg’s “F[igure] 5A illustrates an example of a map with a
geographic area displayed on [a] mobile device.” Blumenberg | 8.
Blumenberg’s “F[igure] 6 illustrates a zoomed out view of the map from
F[igure] 5A.” Blumenberg! 10.
5
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
We agree with the Examiner that the map displayed on the mobile
device screen in Blumenberg’s Figure 5A can reasonably be interpreted as a
“query window” and the zoomed out map displayed on the mobile device
screen in Blumenberg’s Figure 6 can reasonably be interpreted as an
“expanded query window . . . [produced] by expanding the query window.”
See Non-Final Act. 6—7. However, the Examiner apparently interprets the
plurality of vertical and horizontal lines shown in Blumenberg’s Figure 6 as
a “grid and grid lines” (see Non-Final Act. 7) whereas one of ordinary skill
in the art would understand those lines to be map view depictions of streets
(see Blumenberg. 176). Even if one were to understand the street depictions
in Blumenberg’s Figures 5A and 6 to perform the function of “dividing a
domain space into cells by applying a grid of grid lines to the domain space”
(claim 1) we find no disclosure in Blumenberg that the “boundaries [of the
expanded window shown in Blumenberg’s Figure 6] coincide with the
gridlines of the grid,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 6. Further,
although the Examiner is correct that “mapping tools usually always use
coordinates [which] is equivalent to grids” (Non-Final Act. 7), that finding
falls short of explaining how the boundaries of the zoomed out view of
Blumenberg’s Figure 6 coincide with gridlines of a grid applied to divide a
domain space into cells.
Kim’s Figures 4 and 7C are reproduced below.
6
Appeal 2017-001546
Application 13/306,820
FIG. 4
FIG, ?C
pap s' oD 4W0m °
m 3 %#o PtQjQ ?1 Q C
i s | .....