2020003503 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2021)

Facebook, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 28, 2021

2020003503 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2021)

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. 14/567,691 12/11/2014 Lee Charles Linden 19487.537 8319 107193 7590 01/28/2021 Keller Jolley Preece/Facebook 1010 North 500 East Suite 210 North Salt Lake, UT 84054 EXAMINER IOSIF, MARIO CINCINAT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3681 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2021 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): docketing@kjpip.com gjolley@kjpip.com ljohnson@kjpip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEE CHARLES LINDEN, BENJAMIN LEWIS, DWIGHT EWING CROW, JONATHAN SHOTTAN, and PENG FAN Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 Technology Center 3600 Before CHARLES N. GREENHUT, WILLIAM A. CAPP, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. GREENHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12, 14–17, and 19–25. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Facebook, Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an inferring product interest. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for effectively identifying a target group for a product having no purchase history comprising: tracking, by at least one processor of a social networking system, a plurality of purchases by a plurality of users of the social networking system; identifying a plurality of product attributes and a plurality of user attributes associated with the plurality of purchases; determining, based on the identified plurality of product attributes and the identified plurality of user attributes, a plurality of correlations between the plurality of product attributes and the plurality of user attributes, wherein each of the plurality of correlations comprises a pairing between one or more product attributes and one or more user attributes; generating, for each of the plurality of correlations, a correlation score, each correlation score indicating a likelihood that a user having one or more user attributes would be interested in a product having one or more product attributes; receiving one or more product attributes associated with a new product having no purchase history; identifying, without utilizing a purchase history for the new product, a subset of correlations associated with the one or more product attributes associated with the new product having no purchase history; and identifying a target group of users for the new product having no purchase history, prior to accumulating a purchase history for the new product, based on correlation scores for the subset of correlations. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Grannan US 2007/0244750 A1 Oct. 18, 2007 Shah US 2016/0012491 A1 Jan. 14, 2016 Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12, 14–17, and 19–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6–10, 12, 14–17, and 21–23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah. Final Act. 5. Claims 19, 20, and 24–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Shah and Grannan. Final Act. 13. OPINION § 101 The claims are argued as a group (Appeal Br. 12–20) for which claim 1 is representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). We are generally in agreement with the Examiner that claim 1 involves no more than the method of organizing human activity of matching products with people likely to purchase them. Final Act. 3.2 We are also in agreement with the Examiner that the claim is defined by a series of abstract steps that, considered alone, or in combination, amount to no more than general goals defined without the recitation of any practical manipulative steps for achieving those goals, and therefore, the claim amounts to an attempt to preempt or monopolize the abstract idea itself (Final Act. 3–4). This conclusion is unchanged by the recitation of using well-understood, routine, or conventional components such as a processor, or social networking 2 See also Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714–15 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and other cases cited under the headings “Commercial or Legal Interactions” and “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” at MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 4 system, and data associated with products or users (Final Act. 4). The Examiner has provided a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the subject matter claimed with regard to the eligibility requirements associated with 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2–5. The Examiner has also provided a thorough, comprehensive and persuasive response to all the issues raised by Appellant (Appeal Br. 12–20) concerning these requirements. Ans. 3–7. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings, analysis, and conclusions as those of the Board. See, e.g., In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1994) accord In re Cree, 818 F.3d 694, 698 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016). § 103 Although Shah comes very close to forming a complete basis for either an anticipation3 or obviousness rejection, Appellant correctly points out Shah does not “identify[] a target group of users that are likely to have an interest in a new product.” Appeal Br. 6 (emphasis supplied). Shah is user-centric, identifying or associating target gifts with a user such as a potential giver or receiver of a gift. Final Act. 8 (citing Shah paras. 8, 9, 31, 37, 39, 55, 59); see, in particular, para. 39 (“Gifting services server 204 can determine an appropriate set of gifts for each receiver.”). However, the limitation in question calls for “identifying a target group of users for [a] product,” meaning the product, the gift in Shah, is what must have a group of users identified for it. It certainly seem that, using Shah’s collected data as a starting point, this could very easily be achieved with conventional data manipulation techniques such as filtering Shah’s list of users according to 3 Anticipation seems to be implied based on one potential reading of “new product” according to the Examiner’s explanation. Final Act. 8. We need not reach that issue in the present appeal. Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 5 those having an association with a particular product. It also seems like there might be a compelling motivation to do so because that would seem to be beneficial from the standpoint of the merchants, for example, enabling them to identify which users would be interested in their products, such as those from the L.A. Lakers or Starbucks, for example (Shah paras. 55, 57). However, be that as it may, the portions of Shah cited by the Examiner and, insofar as we can tell, Shah in general, focuses on the product information being associated with a particular user, as opposed to a group of users that may be associated with a particular product. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s determination, and as Appellant correctly argues, Shah does not seem to teach or suggest “identifying a target group of users that are likely to have an interest in a new product” as recited in independent claim 1 or subject matter meeting the similar limitation in independent claim 17. The Examiner neither provides any additional evidence nor articulates any reasoning supported by rational underpinnings, to account for this deficiency and establish why, despite the absence of such a disclosure or teaching in Shah, this step would nevertheless have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Thus, on the record presently before us, and on the grounds presently set forth by the Examiner for our review,4 we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s § 101 rejection is AFFIRMED. The Examiner’s § 103 rejections are REVERSED. 4 “The Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse the decision of the examiner in whole or in part on the grounds and on the claims specified by the examiner.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). Appeal 2020-003503 Application 14/567,691 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12, 14– 17, 19–25 101 Eligibility 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12, 14– 17, 19–25 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12, 14– 17, 21–23 103 Shah 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12, 14– 17, 21–23 19, 20, 24, 25 103 Shah, Grannan 19, 20, 24, 25 Overall Outcome 1, 3, 4, 6– 10, 12, 14– 17, 19–25 RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED5 5 “The affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).