Ex Parte Heshmati et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14710511 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/710,511 05/12/2015
120296 7590 12/19/2018
Bay Area Technology Law Group/
InvenSense
2171 E. Francisco Blvd
Suite L
San Rafael, CA 94901
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ardalan Heshmati
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
IVS-589/225.89 1063
EXAMINER
BHAT,ADITYAS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2863
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARDALAN HESHMATI and RAHUL BAKSHI
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
Technology Center 2800
Before BEYERL YA. FRANKLIN, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
AVEL YN M. ROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ROBERTSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3-30. (Appeal Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 This Decision includes citations to the following documents:
Specification filed May 12, 2015 ("Spec."); Final Office Action dated March
16, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief filed October 26, 2017 ("Appeal Br.");
and Examiner's Answer dated March 7, 2018 ("Ans.").
2 Appellant/ Applicant is Invensense, Inc., which is identified as the real
party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
THE INVENTION
Appellant states that the invention relates to techniques for
determining a route traversed by a portable device using item interactions in
conjunction with motion sensor data. (Spec. ,r 1.)
Claim 1, is representative and reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A method for determining location information for a
portable device associated with a user comprising:
traversing a route with the portable device;
identifying interactions between the user and a plurality
of items that occurred while traversing the route, wherein the
item and the portable device do not exchange signals and
wherein at least one interaction between the user and the
plurality of items is identified based at least in part on point of
sale information, such that each interaction indicates proximity
of the user with the item;
establishing a corresponding plurality of anchor points by
associating a known location with each of the plurality of items;
obtaining motion sensor data from the portable device for
a period of time encompassing the identified interactions; and
determining location information for the route traversed
by the portable device based at least in part on the established
anchor points and the motion sensor data.
(Appeal Br. 14, Claim Appendix.)
2
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
REJECTI0NS 3
The Examiner rejected the claims as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3-25 and 27-30 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2008/0147461 Al, published on June
19 2008 "Lee")· and
' ' '
2. Claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Lee and Weiss et
al. (US 2012/0226523 Al, published on September 6, 2012,
"Weiss").
(Final Act. 4--11.)
Appellant does not argue any one claim over another. (See Appeal Br.
9-12.) Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for disposition of
this appeal. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Rejection 1
ISSUE
As to claim 1, the Examiner found that Lee discloses a method for
determining location information for a portable device associated with a user
including all of the limitations recited in the claim including obtaining
motion sensor data from a portable device corresponding to Lee's portable
tags (104) and establishing anchor points via Lee's stationary devices (102),
and identifying interactions with a plurality of items (products), where the
item and the portable device do not exchange signals. (Final Act. 5, citing
Lee, Figs. 1, 7, 18; ,r,r 25-27, 34, 43, 55, 115; Ans. 2-3.)
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 1, 3-25, and 27-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 2; see Final Act. 2--4.)
3
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
Appellant acknowledges that both Lee and the pending claims involve
the determination of location using inertial or motion sensor data, but that
Lee uses a completely different type of information than in claim 1 to
supplement the sensors. (Appeal Br. 10.) That is, Appellant argues that Lee
discloses an active beaconing system with stationary location devices (102)
to either emit or receive signals such that the known locations of these
devices can be used to correct and update the location determined using
inertial sensors, whereas the items, exemplified by products selected for
purchase, are completely passive. (Id.) Appellant contends that claim 1
does not require such infrastructure as disclosed in Lee. (Id.) Appellant
argues that in contrast to Lee, no signals are being exchanged between the
portable device and the items purchased. (Id.) Appellant argues that the
interaction with the items in claim 1 is only identified after the route has
been traversed. (Id.)
In more detail, Appellant argues that the plurality of stationary
location devices (102) disclosed in Lee correspond to the "items" recited in
claim 1, and the tags ( 104 or 108) disclosed in Lee correspond to "a portable
device associated with a user," recited in claim 1. (Id. at 11.) Appellant's
position is that because stationary location devices (102) exchange signals
with the tags (104 or 108), the recitation in claim 1 that "the item and the
portable device do not exchange signals" is not met. (Id.) Appellant argues
that Lee discloses that the route of travel be determined before the
interactions involving items such as products may be identified, which is
contrary to claim 1, which requires that the interactions be identified first,
and then using that information to determine the route. (Id. at 11-12.)
4
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
Appellant argues also that Lee does not disclose identifying
interactions using point of sale information, because Lee only discloses that
the tags are checked in at the point of sale (cash register) and the act of
checking in the tags involves the exchange of signals. (Id. at 12.)
The dispositive issue is:
Has Appellant identified reversible error in the Examiner's position
that Lee discloses identifying interactions between the user and a plurality of
items where the item and the portable device do not exchange signals, and
the at least one interaction is identified at least in part on point of sale
information?
DISCUSSION
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Lee does not
disclose interactions between the item and the portable device where the
item and the portable device do not exchange signals as recited in claim 1.
( Appeal Br. 10-11.) As the Examiner acknowledges, Lee discloses that the
portable device or tag (104 or 108) and the stationary location devices (102)
exchange signals. (Ans. 2-3; Lee ,r,r 25-27, Fig. 7.) However, the
Examiner's position, with which we agree and adopt, is that the "plurality of
items," recited in claim 1 do not correspond to the stationary location
devices, but rather correspond to a product. (Id.) Indeed, Lee discloses that
the stationary location devices located in aisles adjacent to the product
shelves can be associated with product ID' s or advertisement displays. (Lee
,r 49.) Thus, Lee's disclosure supports the Examiner's position that the item
itself does not exchange signals with the portable device. Appellant's
5
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
contention that claim 1 does not require the infrastructure (Appeal Br. 10)
disclosed in Lee, i.e., the presence of stationary location devices (102), is
also not persuasive as the claims do not exclude such infrastructure.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Lee requires
the route to be determined before interactions between the items and
portable device are determined, while claim 1 requires identifying the
interactions first, and then using the information to determine the route.
(Appeal Br. 11-12.) In this regard, we acknowledge that Lee discloses in
paragraph 103 that the recorded chirps or location information is used to
identify products or other product-related information that the tags (104 or
108) were proximate to after the path of travel of the shopper or patron is
determined. (See id.) However, Lee discloses that motion sensor data as
well as the data obtained from the tags (104 or 108), retrieved at the
checkout counter after the route has been traversed, is used to establish the
plurality of anchor points and determine location information as required in
claim 1. (Lee ,r,r 25, 54--56, 99, 115-116, Figs. 1, 7; Ans. 4--5.) As
discussed above, the stationary location devices (102) in Lee may be
associated with nearby products or advertisement displays, and the particular
stationary location devices (102) that the tags (104 or 108) interact with are
only identified after the information from the tags (104 or 108) has been
retrieved at the checkout counter via the docking stations (134 ), after the
route has been traversed with the tags (104 or 108) (portable devices). (Lee
,r,r 49, 99; Figs. 1, 7.)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Lee does not use
point of sale data. (Appeal Br. 12.) We agree with and adopt the
Examiner's interpretation that "point of sale data can be interpreted as any
6
Appeal2018---006000
Application 14/710,511
data created, obtained, transmitted, received at the point of sale/checkout
counter." (Ans. 3.) As pointed out by the Examiner, the Specification does
not set forth a specific definition of "point of sale information" that would
exclude Lee's disclosure of retrieving data collected by the tags (104 or 108)
at the docking stations (134) provided at the checkout counters. (Ans. 3
citing Spec. ,r 50; Lee ,r 55, Fig. 1.)
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and
claims 3-25, and 27-30, which depend from claim 1.
Rejection 2
Appellant does not present separate arguments regarding claim 26, the
claim that is the subject of Rejection 2. Therefore, we affirm the Examiner's
rejections of these claims for the reasons discussed above with respect to
Rejection 1 and claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-30.
TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
7