Q-Tec Systems LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2020

2020003397 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2020)

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.
14/251,774 04/14/2014 Roger J. Quy 2105.1CIP 2274
27774 7590 12/23/2020
MAYER & WILLIAMS PC
55 Madison Avenue
Suite 400
Morristown, NJ 07960
EXAMINER
AGAHI, PUYA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3791
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2020 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):
docket@mwpatentlaw.com
kwilliams@mwpatentlaw.com
mwolf@mwpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGER J. QUY
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PESLAK, 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 23–29, 31–34, 36, and 37. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Vista Group
LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

2
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for monitoring emotional
compatibility between users. Claims 23 and 36 are independent. Claim 23,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
23. In a networked interactive experience between plural
users, a method for improving user assessment of other users by
incorporating a measurable objective user autonomic nervous
system response, comprising:
a. providing an interactive experience between plural
users including at least a first user using a first augmented or
virtual reality headset and a second user using a second
augmented or virtual reality headset, the interactive experience
including a variety of successive stimuli displayed in a series on
each of the first and second augmented or virtual reality headsets,
the variety of stimuli configured to cause one or more autonomic
nervous system responses in the respective first and second
users;
b. during the interactive experience, receiving or
measuring physiological data from the first and second users, the
receiving or measuring using one or more biosensors;
c. for each of the first and second users, deriving
emotional data from the received physiological data using an
emotional recognition algorithm operating on an emotion
monitoring device, the derived emotional data including at least
an emotional valence index;
d. causing a rendering of an indicator of the derived
emotional data of the second user on the first augmented or
virtual reality headset, and causing a rendering of an indicator of
the derived emotional data of the first user on the second
augmented or virtual reality headset;
e. wherein the rendered indicator on the first
augmented or virtual reality headset provides an indication
enabling the first user to assess the second user’s compatibility
as a partner in a friendship, romantic relationship or marriage,
and wherein the rendered indicator on the second augmented or
virtual reality headset provides an indication enabling the second
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

3
user to assess the first user’s compatibility as a partner in a
friendship, romantic relationship or marriage;
f. updating one or more of the variety of stimuli based
on machine learning based on the derived emotional data; and
g. such that the rendered indicators provide the first
and second users with objective emotional data about the second
and first users, respectively, rather than solely subjective user-
entered data, improving user assessment of other users.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ramadas US 2006/0224046 A1 Oct. 5, 2006
Lemos US 2007/0066916 A1 Mar. 22, 2007
Blattner US 2007/0168863 A1 July 19, 2007
Meijer US 2008/0082311 A1 Apr. 3, 2008
Forbes US 2011/0020778 A1 Jan. 27, 2011
REJECTIONS2
1. Claims 29 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite.
2. Claims 23–29, 31–34, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Blattner, Lemos, Meijer, Forbes, and Ramadas.

2 A rejection of claims 23–29, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), rejection
of claims 23–28, 31–34, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), and a rejection of
claims 23–29, 31–34, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 are withdrawn in the
Answer. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1; Indefiniteness of Claims 29 and 36
Claim 29
The Examiner finds that claim 29 is indefinite because it is unclear
what structure claim 29 recites and how claim 29 differs from claim 36.
Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4. Appellant disagrees and states that claim 29 is
not identical to system claim 36. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant’s Specification explains that the “system is designed for
multiple users that can be connected in an interactive network whereby
emotion data can be collected and shared.” Spec. ¶ 9. The Specification
discloses that “[m]ultiple users equipped with emotion monitors can be
connected directly, in peer-to-peer networks or via the internet, with shared
emotion data.” Spec. ¶ 11. Although the claimed system may be broad, we
determine that the term is not unclear because one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand the scope of the system when read in light of the
Specification. Moreover, as Appellant notes, claim 29 is not merely
duplicative of claim 36, in that claim 36 recites a computer readable medium
and claim 29 does not. See Appeal Br. 8. For these reasons, we do not
sustain this rejection.
Claim 36
The Examiner finds that claim 36 is indefinite based on the double
recitation of “an emotion monitoring device.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant argues that because an emotion monitoring device as
recited in line 31 refers to the emotion monitoring devices of both the first
and second users, it is not limited to the same emotion monitoring device
recited in line 3. Appeal Br. 9.
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

5
The Examiner maintains that the recitation is unclear because each of
the users are coupled to “the single emotion monitoring device,” initially
recited. Ans. 4. For the following reason, we do not agree with the
Examiner.
Although claim 36 step b. recites “the emotion monitoring device,”
claim 36 is not limited to a “single” device as the Examiner suggests.
Rather, consistent with the Specification, various emotional monitoring
devices are disclosed and each user is equipped with their own emotion
monitoring device. Spec. ¶¶ 16, 38. Because claim 36, step e. iii. recites,
using an emotion monitoring device “for each of the first and second users,”
the claim is not limited to the same emotion monitoring device recited in
step a. We are not persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art would be
unable to determine to which emotion monitoring device a user is coupled.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite.
Rejection 2
Appellant argues claims 23–29, 31–34, 36, and 37 as a group. Appeal
Br. 10–13. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we select claim 23 as
representative and claims 24–29, 31–34, 36, and 37 stand or fall with claim
23.
The Examiner finds that Blattner discloses an interactive experience
between plural users including using physiological data of a first user that
provides a measurable objective user autonomic nervous system response,
which indicates the first user’s mood, and sending the indication of mood to
a second user. Final Act. 9–10 (citing Blattner ¶ 53). The Examiner finds
that Blattner does not disclose, inter alia, a variety of stimuli configured to
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

6
cause one or more autonomic nervous system responses in the first and
second users. Id. at 10–11. The Examiner finds, however, that Forbes
discloses a variety of stimuli that cause an autonomic nervous system
response in users. Id. at 11. The Examiner considers that it would have
been obvious to modify Blattner to use a variety of stimuli “in order to
measure emotional responses in assessing a match between two users in an
interactive experience for dating purposes, as evidence[d] by Forbes.” Id. at
13. The Examiner also relies on Meijer, Lemos, and Ramadas for additional
limitations that are not contested by Appellant. See id. at 11–13; see also
Appeal Br. 10–13.
Appellant argues that there is no reason to modify Blattner in the
manner suggested because Blattner’s users already have a pre-established
relationship with one another. Appeal Br. 12. According to Appellant,
based on this pre-existing relationship, there would be no need to assess the
users’ compatibility. Id.
The Examiner responds that because Blattner and Forbes both relate
to interactive experiences in which users transmit emotion data to each other
the combination is proper. Ans. 5. According to the Examiner, the claims
do not exclude the users from having a pre-existing relationship. Id. The
Examiner asserts, moreover that a pre-existing relationship does not prevent
users from wanting to assess their compatibility. Id. at 6. For the following
reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error.
Blattner broadly “relates to projecting a graphical representation of a
communications application operator (hereinafter ‘sender’) in
communications sent in a network of computers.” Blattner ¶ 2. This does
not appear to restrict Blattner to pre-existing relationships. See Ans. 6. In
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

7
addition, Blattner discloses various groups of users including co-workers,
friends (buddies), and family. Blattner ¶¶ 47, 140, 220. The Examiner’s
stated reason for the combination is “in order to measure emotional
responses in assessing a match between two users in an interactive
experience for dating purposes.” Final Act. 13. Appellant does not
persuasively explain why a pre-existing relationship between two co-
workers or friends would render unnecessary a compatibility assessment for
a new relationship such as dating.
Appellant also argues that “Forbes is fundamentally incompatible with
Blattner” because Forbes relates to a method for assessing a pre-cognitive
emotional response from a test subject who is an active participant during
the assessment process, whereas Blattner’s users communicate using avatars
and “would have no inclination and likely no ability to focus on the
assessment process of Forbes.” Appeal Br. 12–13. According to Appellant,
“only in a highly unrealistic and contrived situation” would the references be
combined, and then, “only with the improper use of hindsight.” Id. at 13.
In response, the Examiner notes that “Blattner and Forbes pertain to
the same narrow field of endeavor (social interaction between multiple users
over a network),” and both Blattner and Forbes use emotion/mood data that
is shared between users. Ans. 6. According to the Examiner, the reason for
their combination is proper. We are not apprised of Examiner error for the
following reasons.
First, Appellant’s argument that Blattner’s users would not be able “to
focus on the assessment process of Forbes” is not persuasive because the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of Blattner and Forbes, not a
bodily incorporation of the assessment process of Forbes into Blattner’s
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

8
communication session. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(citations omitted) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference”); In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973)
(“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”). Second, Blattner is not limited to
instant messaging and contemplates applications in which “an animated
avatar . . . acts as an information assistant to convey news, weather, and
other information to a user of a computer system or a computing device.”
Blattner ¶ 247. In order to effectively process this information, the user,
contrary to Appellant’s contention, would “be able to maintain their
attention.” See Appeal Br. 13. Third, we note that Appellant does not
dispute any of the Examiner’s factual findings. See Appeal Br. 12–13. Nor
does Appellant specifically dispute any of the reasons stated by the
Examiner for combining the disclosures of the references. See id. The
Examiner’s reason for the combination is “in order to measure emotional
responses in assessing a match between two users in an interactive
experience for dating purposes.” Final Act. 13. Blattner already measures a
user’s mood or activity that communicates an emotional state (Blattner
¶¶ 153, 159) and Forbes discloses assessing a subject to develop a
motivational profile so that “the subject may be matched with another person
with a similar motivational characteristic (e.g., as in a dating or
matchmaking service).” Forbes ¶ 40; see also Final Act. 11–12. Given that
Forbes teaches assessing a match between interactive users for dating
purposes, the Examiner’s reasoning is disclosed in the cited references,
rather than stemming from impermissible hindsight. Because the
Appeal 2020-003397
Application 14/251,774

9
Examiner’s reasoning for the proposed modification is reasonable and
supported by rational underpinnings found in the prior art, we do not agree
that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible hindsight.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 23 as unpatentable
over Blattner and Forbes. Claims 24–29, 31–34, 36, and 37 fall with claim
23.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s indefinite rejections are reversed; and the
obviousness rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
29, 36 112(b) Indefiniteness 29, 36
23–29, 31–
34, 36, 37
103 Blattner, Lemos,
Meijer, Forbes,
Ramadas
23–29, 31–34,
36, 37

Overall
Outcome:
23–29, 31–34,
36, 37

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