International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 13, 2021

2020003332 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 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.
14/953,838 11/30/2015 Maximilien P. M. A. de Bayser YOR920151009US1 7911
48813 7590 08/13/2021
LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR)
PO Box 765
Cardiff, CA 92007
EXAMINER
LE, UYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2021 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):
pair@tuchmanlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAXIMILIEN P. M. A. DE BAYSER, SILVIA C. S. BIANCHI,
CARLOS H. CARDONHA, PAULO R. CAVALIN,
MAIRA GATTI DE BAYSER, LUIS G. MOYANO,
VAGNER FIGUEREDO DE SANTANA,
MARCELO NERY DOS SANTOS,
VINICIUS COSTA VILLAS BOAS SEGURA, and
BIANCA ZADROZNY
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838
Technology Center 2100
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER,
JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
“The present invention relates generally to life-cycle management and
recommendation of personal items based on item interaction.” Spec.2 ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative3 of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for managing items, the system comprising:
a sensor configured to identify a first physical object and
a second physical object in a building;
a computer interface in communication with the sensor to
receive a first identification of the first physical object and a
second identification of the second physical object; and
a computer including at least one central processing unit,
the computer to:

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed November 30, 2015
(“Spec.”); Final Office Action dated August 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal
Brief filed December 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer dated
February 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and Appellant’s Reply Brief filed March 30,
2020 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Appellant’s arguments are presented using independent claim 1 as a
representative claim. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 11. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

3
automatically search for trend information about the first
physical object;
determine a first interaction between the first physical
object and the second physical object based, in part, on the first
identification of the first physical object and the second
identification of the second physical object; and
recommend disposition of the first physical object based
on at least the first interaction between the first physical object
and the second physical object, and the trend information about
the first physical object.
Appeal Br. 16.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Dorenbosch US 2002/0198795 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
Guo et al (“Guo”) US 2014/0379426 A1 Dec. 25, 2014
REJECTIONS4
I. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite.
II. Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, and 17–20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Dorenbosch.
III. Claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Dorenbosch and Guo.

4 The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to
comply with the written description requirement has been withdrawn by the
Examiner. Ans. 10.
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims in light of each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded
that Appellant has identified reversible error in the appealed rejection based
on 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and are not persuaded Appellant has identified
reversible error in the appealed rejections based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)/103.
Rejection of claims 19 and 20 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The Examiner determines that “[t]he specification as originally filed
does not support ‘the first interaction being washing the first physical object
together with the second physical object’ now being claimed in claim 19.”
Final Act. 5.
Appellant responds that “[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
understand Table 3 discloses a determined action type of washing a first
physical object (jacket) together with a second physical object (washing
machine).” Appeal Br. 9; see Spec. ¶¶ 37–41, Tables 2 and 3.
According to the Examiner, however,
since all that washing machines do is wash and since they cannot
“interact” in the general sense with other items or objects unless
those items or objects are placed into the washing machine
probably through human intervention or any mechanism that also
activates the washing machine, it is not clear what appellant
meant by “determine a first interaction between the first physical
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

5
object and the second physical object based, in part, on the first
identification of the first physical object and the second
identification of the second physical object, the first interaction
being washing the first physical object together with the second
physical object.”
Ans. 11–12. Appellant argues that the “Examiner’s argument is entirely
unsupported conjecture and speculation.”5 Reply 4.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s reasoning at pages 11–12 of the
Answer regarding whether a washing machine can interact with other items.
Rather, based on Appellant’s express statement that “[o]ne of ordinary skill
in the art would understand Table 3 discloses a determined action type of
washing a first physical object (jacket) together with a second physical
object (washing machine)” (Appeal Br. 9), and the corresponding disclosure
at paragraphs 37–41 of the Specification, we are persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection based on 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Accordingly, we do not
sustain this rejection.
Rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, 17, and 18 as being anticipated
by or obvious in view of Dorenbosch
The Examiner relies on the home inventory management system of
Dorenbosch as teaching the claimed system and method for managing items.
See, e.g., Final Act. 6–7 (discussing claim 1). Dorenbosch discloses home
inventory management system 100 that is “geared to management of

5 Appellant also argues that “the specification states the first physical object
and the second physical object can be articles of clothing. [Spec. ¶ 22].
Thus, in light of the specification, those skilled in the art would understand
the determining step of claim 19 determines if two objects are being washed
together.” Reply 4. We note that the Specification does not disclose two
articles of clothing being washed together.
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

6
groceries and other types of regularly purchased household items.”
Dorenbosch ¶ 12. System 100 includes an inventory computer
(i.e., PC 110), various tracking and sensing units (i.e., tag readers 123, 124,
125 associated with door 101, trash 102, and refrigerator 103, respectively).
Id. ¶¶ 8, 14, 16.
The tag readers are in communication with PC 110 to provide
inventory control. Id. ¶ 14. For example, “refrigerator 103 has one or more
RF tag readers 125 installed therein for reading the RF tags of items
currently inside the refrigerator.” Id. ¶ 16. “PC 110 is able to maintain a
continually updated inventory database corresponding to the currently
available inventory of the type of purchased items that come equipped with
detectable identification tags.” Id. ¶ 19.
[I]nventory management system 100 provides to the user upon
request, or at regular intervals, a list of items to purchase, based
on current inventory and past purchase and consumption trends.
System 100 preferably establishes a baseline (normal) profile of
items normally present in the home, and automatically adds items
to a shopping list if the item is running low or will soon need to
be replenished.
Id. ¶ 20.
According to the Examiner, “Dorenbosch clearly teaches interactions
between objects when Dorenbosch shows grocer[y] items are stored at a
location for example in a pantry, closet, cabinet or refrigerator.” Final Act. 7
(citing Dorenbosch ¶¶ 12, 18).
Appellant contends that Dorenbosch does not teach “determin[ing] a
first interaction between the first physical object and the second physical
object based, in part, on the first identification of the first physical object and
the second identification of the second physical object.” See Appeal Br. 11–
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

7
12. Appellant further contends that “[t]he plain meaning of ‘interaction’ is
defined as a mutual or reciprocal action or influence,” and that the
Examiner’s interpretation that “items stored together at a storage area [(e.g.,
refrigerator 103)] ‘as interacting with one another and also with that storage
area’” is incorrect. Id. at 12 (citing Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary,
Merriam-Webster, Inc., p. 630 (9th ed. 1983); Final Act. 4).
The Examiner responds:
the examiner agrees interact means to act on each other and based
on appellant’s explanation of how Tables 2 and 3 of appellant’s
specification support the first interaction being washing the first
physical object (jacket) together with the second physical object
(washing machine), the examiner maintains the examiner's
interpretation of an item stored at a storage area is interacting
with that storage area for example a grocery item stored in the
refrigerator of Dorenbosch is in interaction with the refrigerator.
This is consistent with appellant’s interpretation of “interaction”
of a jacket with a washing machine in that the jacket is being
washed together with the washing machine at page 9 of 25 of the
appeal brief.6
Ans. 12–13.
We agree with the Examiner that Dorenbosch’s disclosure of a
grocery item stored in the refrigerator teaches an interaction between a first
physical object and a second physical object, as claimed. This is consistent
with the teaching in the Specification that a jacket interacts with a washing
machine with an interaction type of “washing.” Spec. ¶¶ 37–41, Tables 2

6 In the Reply, Appellant contends this is a new argument. Reply 5. We
disagree. In the Final Action, the Examiner expressly stated, in response to
Appellant’s previous arguments, that “[i]tems stored together at a particular
storage area are interpreted by the examiner as interacting with one another
and also with that storage area.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

8
and 3. Analogizing Dorenbosch, the grocery item interacts with the
refrigerator with an interaction type of storing or refrigerating.
Appellant further contends that “the first and second physical objects
are claimed to be identified by a sensor” (Appeal Br. 12), and that
“paragraph [0012] of Dorenbosch does not teach or reasonably suggest a
sensor configured to identify a refrigerator, pantry, closet or cabinet”
(Appeal Br. 13). The Examiner responds, contending that
Dorenbosch teaches at paragraph 0018 that by employing
sufficient sensors in storage areas, the system can know the
location of at least some unconsumed items. The fact that the
system of Dorenbos[c]h recognizes an item as being stored at
specific locations clearly suggests sensors are used to identify
those locations.
Ans. 14. In other words, tag reader 125 is installed in refrigerator 103 and
therefore identifies the refrigerator as the particular storage location for
grocery items sensed by the tag reader. Dorenbosch ¶ 16.
Appellant contends in the Reply that “Dorenbosch discloses sensors to
detect items at a ‘location’ and a location is not a physical object.” Reply 6
(citing Dorenbosch ¶ 18). We disagree. In Dorenbosch, one such location is
refrigerator 103, which is a physical object.
Appellant further contends that “there is no teaching or suggestion in
Dorenbosch of sensors to detect physical storage objects (e.g., refrigerator,
pantry, closet or cabinet).” Reply 6. Claim 1 merely requires, however, that
the sensor be “configured to identify” the second physical object, and does
not further require that it detects the object in any particular manner. As
discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Dorenbosch teaches this
limitation.
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

9
Accordingly, for these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8–12, 14, 15, 17, and 18, which Appellant
does not argue separately. See Appeal Br. 13–14.
Rejection of claims 19 and 20 as being anticipated by or obvious in view of
Dorenbosch
Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1 also apply to independent
claim 19, and are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Appellant
presents additional arguments for claim 19, which further recites, inter alia,
“the first interaction being washing the first physical object together with the
second physical object.” Appeal Br. 22.
The Examiner reasons that
Dorenbosch discloses a system for inventory management of
various household items as admitted by appellant. The fact that
Dorenbosch discusses household items such as a refrigerator that
refrigerates grocery items at least at paragraph 0012 clearly
suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to contemplate another
household item such as a washing machine that washes and the
interaction being washing as claimed.
Ans. 15; Final Act. 9.
Appellant contends, “there is not a teaching or reasonable suggestion
in Dorenbosch of a first interaction being washing the first physical object
together with the second physical object.” Appeal Br. 14. In the Reply,
Appellant argues that the Examiner has improperly used Official Notice in
this rejection. Reply 7–8. Appellant, however, has not adequately traversed
the Examiner’s determination that Dorenbosch’s teaching of a household
item such as a refrigerator would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill
in the art to contemplate another household item such as a washing machine.
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

10
See MPEP § 2144.03(C) (“To adequately traverse such a finding, an
applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s
action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to
be common knowledge or well-known in the art.”). Regardless, one of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the method used
in Dorenbosch, sensing household items relative to a household appliance
(such as the disclosed refrigerator), could be extended to other household
appliances (such as a conventional washing machine).
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1
and for this additional reason, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claim 19, and of claim 20 which depends therefrom.
Rejection of claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 as being obvious in view of Dorenbosch
and Guo
Appellant does not present separate arguments with respect to
dependent claims 4, 7, 13, and 16. See Appeal Br. 15.
We therefore sustain the rejection of claims 4, 7, 13, and 16 for the
same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b) is reversed. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)/103 are affirmed.
Appeal 2020-003332
Application 14/953,838

11
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19, 20 112(b) Indefinite 19, 20
1–3, 5, 6,
8–12, 14,
15, 17–20
102(a)(1)
103
Dorenbosch 1–3, 5, 6,
8–12, 14,
15, 17–20

4, 7, 13, 16 103 Dorenbosch, Guo 4, 7, 13, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–20
TIME PERIOD FOR 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).
AFFIRMED