INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2020005640 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2022)

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. 15/815,294 11/16/2017 Timothy P. Griffith GB920090070US03 8975 75949 7590 01/31/2022 IBM CORPORATION C/O: Fabian Vancott 215 South State Street Suite 1200 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 EXAMINER SOMERS, MARC S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): patents@fabianvancott.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte TIMOTHY P. GRIFFITH, IAN M. SHORE, SAMUEL J. SMITH, and MARTIN J. SMITHSON ________________ Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, 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 1-20. The Examiner indicates that claims 15, 19, and 20 are allowable. Final Act. 29.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm in part. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 The Examiner’s finding that claims 14-20 are allowable (Final Act. 29) is inconsistent with the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14 and 16-18 (id. at 16-23). Therefore, the Examiner’s finding of allowability is only consistent with respect to the Final Action when limited to claims 15, 19, and 20. Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 2 SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to processing an incomplete query for a database by determining that a portion of the query comprises an incomplete component of one of multiple predefined types, providing the incomplete component to an auto-complete function specific to the determined type, and receiving a suggestion for completing the query from the auto-complete function. Abstract. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references (only the first named inventor of each reference is listed): Name Reference Date Ortega US 6,564,213 B1 May 13, 2003 Angele US 2006/0167856 A1 July 27, 2006 Morgan US 2007/0208738 A1 Sept. 6, 2007 Brodsky US 2008/0270343 A1 Oct. 30, 2008 Smit US 2009/0006543 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 Andrew US 2009/0187515 A1 July 23, 2009 Pan US 2010/0106729 A1 Apr. 29, 2010 Morrill US 2010/0275109 A1 Oct. 28, 2010 Bourdoncle US 2012/0197864 A1 Aug. 2, 2012 Griffith ’828 US 9,323,828 B2 Apr. 26, 2016 Griffith ’191 US 9,892,191 B2 Feb. 13, 2018 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-20 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Citation 1, 3-5, 8- 13, 16-18 Obviousness-type double- patenting (Griffith ’191) Final Act. 16-21 1, 8, 14 Obviousness-type double- patenting (Griffith ’828) Final Act. 21-22 Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 3 1, 8, 10 103(a) Ortega, Morgan Final Act. 3-5 2, 9 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Pan Final Act. 5-6 2, 9 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Smit Final Act. 6-7 3 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Morrill Final Act. 7-8 4 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Brodsky Final Act. 8-9 5, 7 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Bourdoncle Final Act. 9-11 6 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Andrew Final Act. 11-12 11, 12 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Angele Final Act. 12-13 13 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Angele, Bourdoncle Final Act. 13-14 ANALYSIS Obviousness-type double-patenting The Examiner rejects (1) claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, and 16-18 for obviousness-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 19, and 20 of Griffith ’191 and (2) claims 1, 8, and 14 for obvious-type double-patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of Griffith ’828. Final Act. 16-22. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rejection, but merely submits that “[w]hen given leave to do so, Appellant will [file a] terminal disclaimer following resolution of the . . . rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 5. Because Appellant forfeits any arguments with respect to these rejections, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s obviousness-type double-patenting rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 8-14, and 16-18. Obviousness Claim 1, which is illustrative with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-13, is reproduced below (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketed numerals added). Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 4 1. A method comprising: receiving a portion of a database query from a client device in a server implemented by at least one processor, the portion of the database query comprising an incomplete component; [1] determining, from the incomplete component, that the incomplete component is one of a plurality of predefined types with the server, the predefined types comprising a data model component, a query language feature, or a data value; [2] providing the incomplete component to an auto-complete function specific to the determined type of the incomplete component; receiving in the server a number of suggestions for completing the database query from the auto-complete function, the suggestion being specific to the type of the incomplete component; and providing the number of suggestions from the server to the client device. Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.). The method of claim 1 includes [1] determining that an incomplete component is one of a plurality of predefined types within a server (the predefined types comprising “a data model component, a query language feature, or a data value”) and [2] “providing the incomplete component to an auto-complete function specific to the determined type of the incomplete component.” The Specification discloses that: [f]or a model component, the model representation stored within the model expert 24 is queried for applicable elements that match the existing representation, using the existing context from the lexer 22, i.e. already scoped to a given class (Xpath), table (SQL), or graph (SPARQL). For a structural component, the lexer 22 knows the list of permissible symbols it expects for the next step, as dictated by the language grammar. For a data component, a keyword auto-suggest query can be run, but within the context of the existing query Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 5 structure, thereby giving results only in the currently specified scope. Spec. ¶ 31. For example, if a “user has typed the expression /WSRR/ GenericObject[@property="fo into the graphical user interface 30 . . . the service 18 will perform an auto-complete function” which gives a “list of property values,” such as “foo” and “forward.” Spec. ¶¶ 36-37 (adding fixed font to distinguish the disclosed example query), Fig. 4. The function for generating these suggestions-which includes converting the partial query to the valid query /WSSR/GenericObject[matches (@property='fo%')]-is selected based on the incomplete component type being a data value. Id. This function differs from the functions used to generate suggestions for model components and structural components. Id. ¶¶ 31, 40. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that the combination of Ortega’s context-sensitive auto-completion suggestions and Morgan’s distinction between complete and incomplete search phrases teaches or suggests recitations [1] and [2]. Final Act. 3-4 (citing Ortega 5:55-65, 6:19- 26; Morgan ¶ 56). The Examiner concludes: [i]t would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the query system of Ortega by incorporating means determining query type based on the user input as taught by Morgan in order to improve the precision of query results be being able to narrow/focus the search and query suggestions to the particular type of query that the user is interested in. Id. at 4. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because “none of the context described in Ortega has anything to do with the type of ‘the incomplete Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 6 component.’” Appeal Br. 14. Rather, Appellant argues, Ortega describes “tagging search results.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). “For example, by tagging ‘SONY’ as an electronic element, Ortega filters the results to relevant nodes and does not teach a ‘type’ of the incomplete component.” Id. Appellant argues that “returning different search results is no indication of ‘different processes for providing an auto-completion.’” Reply Br. 7. Appellant’s argument accords with Ortega’s teachings. For example, Ortega illustrates that for an incomplete search beginning with “SO,” the autocomplete suggestions include “SONY,” “SOFTWARE,” “SONGS,” etc. Ortega Fig. 2A. But if the incomplete search begins with “SONY,” then the autocomplete suggestions change to “SONY VCR,” “SONY TV,” etc. Id. Fig. 2B. Moreover, Ortega illustrates that the autocomplete suggestions, whether based on merely “SO” or based on “SONY,” all come from the searching the same trie tree, rather than coming from performing a type- specific auto-complete function. Ortega 5:66-6:18, Fig. 3. The Examiner does not show Appellant mischaracterizes Ortega’s teachings and suggestions. Instead, the Examiner merely notes that the rejection also relies on the teachings of Morgan. Ans. 5. Appellant, however, further contends the Examiner errs because “[a]t most, Morgan describes determining that a portion is incomplete.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6. Appellant emphasizes that “claim 1 describes how different auto-complete operations are carried out and that which operation is carried out is dependent upon the type of the incomplete component.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Morgan’s “system can determine a type of input including whether the input is numeric (data value) or string text Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 7 (query language feature) and perform different actions based on such determination.” Ans. 6. Morgan, however, teaches that: suggestion system 150 draws the meaning or intent from the explicit structured information in the search query which allows for typed value suggestions (i.e., for numeric values, a range of possible values in the match set can be shown, and for text values a unique set can be shown, both with tally information). Morgan ¶ 56 (italicized emphasis added). The example discussed in the cited paragraph of Morgan (the incomplete phrase “with Attribute”) results in autocomplete suggestions such as “x = Bluetooth (10)” and “x = Calendar (59).” Id. Fig. 4. Morgan discloses other examples, including providing “the user with result counts summarized . . . through dynamic numeric ranges (e.g., price $20.00-$40.00).” Id. ¶ 44. We agree with the Appellant, however, that “merely returning different search results is no indication of ‘different processes for providing an auto-completion.’” Reply Br. 7 (emphasis added). That is, although “different [query] text strings may result in different outputs . . .[,] that alone does not mean that the process, or the ‘function’ is any different.” Id. Moreover, even if Morgan’s function for providing numeric values differs from Morgan’s function for providing text values, the Examiner’s findings do not show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill, even in light of the teachings of Ortega, to select these functions based on a determined type of an incomplete component. Rather, Morgan at best discloses that the suggestions are those having typed values that are pertinent to determine how the suggestions should be provided. Morgan ¶ 56. For these reasons, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Ortega and Morgan teach or suggest recitations [1] and [2]. Furthermore, the Examiner’s findings do not show that Pan, Smit, Morrill, Brodsky, Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 8 Bourdoncle, Andrew, or Angele, alone or in combination, cure the noted deficiencies of Ortega and Morgan. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2-13, which contain similar recitations. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-5, 8-13, 16-18 Obviousness-type double-patenting (Griffith ’191) 1, 3-5, 8- 13, 16-18 1, 8, 14 Obviousness-type double-patenting (Griffith ’828) 1, 8, 14 1, 8, 10 103(a) Ortega, Morgan 1, 8, 10 2, 9 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Pan 2, 9 2, 9 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Smit 2, 9 3 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Morrill 3 4 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Brodsky 4 5, 7 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Bourdoncle 5, 7 6 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Andrew 6 11, 12 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Angele 11, 12 13 103(a) Ortega, Morgan, Angele, Bourdoncle 13 Overall Outcome 1, 3-5, 8- 14, 16-18 2, 6, 7 Appeal 2020-005640 Application 15/815,294 9 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking 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 IN PART