Ex Parte Hjelm et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

13090554 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/090,554 04/20/2011
132398 7590 11/25/2016
Clairvolex Inc,
4010 MOORPARK AVE, Ste, 228
San Jose, CA 95117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Johan HJELM
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.
3602-260 2705
EXAMINER
ALSOMIRI, MAID! A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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):
elofdocket@clairvolex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte JOHAN HJELM, MATTIAS LIDSTROM, and
MONA MATTI
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, ERIC C. JESCHKE, and
GORDON D. KINDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KINDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a route recommendation system. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A route recommendation apparatus for recommending a
route to a user, comprising:
a data storage system for storing for a first person, who is
different than the user, location information associated with the
first person, the location information comprising information
identifying a route that the first person traversed in going from a
first location to a second location;
a network interface for receiving route request messages;
and
a data processing system configured to perform a method
in response to the network interface receiving a route request
message that was transmitted by a communication device
operated by a user, where the route request message requests a
recommended route from the first location to the second location,
the method comprising:
determining for the user a recommended route
going from the first location to the second location,
wherein the determining step comprises using the
information identifying the route that the first person
traversed in going from the first location to the second
location in determining the recommended route; and
using the network interface to transmit to the
communication device a route request response message
comprising information identifying the determined
recommended route.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kalaboukis US 2009/0326800 Al Dec. 31, 2009
2
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kalaboukis.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20
of copending Application No. 13/227 ,751.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 11 are the sole independent claims; claims 7 and 17
depend from claims 1 and 11, respectively. Appellants argue claims 1-20 as
a group, with additional, identical arguments made in connection with
claims 7 and 17. Appeal Br. 5-8. We select claim 1 as representative, and
claims 2-6, 8-16, and 18-20 stand or fall with claim 1. 3 7 C.F.R.
§ 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv). We address the separate additional arguments presented
for claims 7 and 17 separately, infra.
Claim 1 rejected as anticipated by Kalaboukis.
Claim 1 recites a route recommendation apparatus wherein the
recommended route is determined "using the information identifying the
route that [a] first person [who is different than the user] traversed in going
from the first location to the second location." Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
The Examiner finds the quoted limitation met by Kalaboukis, particularly
citing i-fi-14, 5, and 29-31. Ans. 2-3. Kalaboukis determines what it terms a
"personalized distance" between two locations "using spatial, temporal,
topical, and social data relating to the requesting user and each real-world
3
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
entity and the route." Kalaboukis il 4. Kalaboukis defines a real-world
entity, without limitation, as "a person, device, location, or other physical
thing known to a W4 COMN [i.e., a W4 Communications Network]." Id. i-f
32. A W-4 COMN is a "collection of users, devices and processes that foster
both synchronous and asynchronous communication between users and their
proxies providing an instrumented network of sensors providing data
recognition and collection in real-world environments about any subject,
location, user or combination thereof." Id. i-f 29. "Examples of [real-world
entities] that may use proxies to interact with a W-4 COMN network include
non-electronic entities including physical entities such as people, locations
(e.g., states, cities, houses, buildings, airports, roads, etc.) and things .... "
Id. i-f 34.
In Kalaboukis, the determination of a personalized distance between
two points begins with selecting one or more routes between the two points.
See, e.g., i-fi-197, 136, 139, 141. The routes may then be modified in light of
various factors including temporal factors, social factors and topical factors.
Id. i-f 99. "Travel time on a route can be estimated based on average travel
time historically associated with a route. . . . In one embodiment, data used
to determine travel time on a route may be a combination of many sources of
data from multiple sensor networks." Id.
Appellants argue first that Kalaboukis is not concerned with
determining a route for a requester, but rather with determining a "personal
distance". Appeal Br. 5---6. "In short, determining a 'personalized distance'
for a given route is not the same [as] (or equivalent to) determining the route
itself." Id. at 6. We disagree because, however named, Kalaboukis's result
is a route or routes that has/have been adjusted to account for, among other
4
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
things, whether a portion of the route has "a reputation for being in poor
physical condition" (Kalaboukis i-f 98), the "average travel time historically
associated with the route" (Id. i-f 99) or on "a combination of many sources
of data from multiple sensor networks." Id. A route's "reputation" and the
historic average travel time along a route both reflect "using the information
identifying the route that [a] first person [who is different than the user]
traversed in going from the first location to the second location" as required
by claim 1. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).
To the extent Appellants are arguing that Kalaboukis' s route is
selected before any historical information is brought into play (see Reply Br.
2), we noted above that Kalaboukis may present the user with one or more
planned routes from which to choose. For example, Kalaboukis describes
"an alternative embodiment [in which] the color coding of routes [is] based
oil [sic, on] rank of users' likely preferences (e.g. the best route is colored
green, the worst, brown.)" Kalaboukis i-f 141. For this and Kalaboukis's
other plural-route embodiments, each route may be considered a
"recommended route," and each may be based on beginning and end points
as well as on additional information relevant to the route, including
historical information of previous travelers on that route.
In view of the foregoing and on the record presented, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. For the same reasons, we
are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 2---6, 8-16, and 18-20.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected as anticipated by Kalaboukis.
Claim 7 adds to claim 1 that the determining step includes
"determining the current time of day and comparing the determined current
5
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
time of day with the time information identifying the time of day at which
said first person traversed the route." Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Appellants argue that Kalaboukis does not suggest comparing the
determined current time of day with information identifying the time of day
at which the first person traversed and identified a route. The Examiner
cited Kalaboukis paragraph 85, where Kalaboukis describes recording
temporal data (e.g., time stamps) that relate to specific times and/or events
associated with the user and/or with the electronic device. Ans. 3.
Kalaboukis continues by explaining the use of that data in calculating a
desired route. Kalaboukis states:
Such travel time can be useful, but can be enhanced by
combining it with historical travel time data accumulated over a
period of time. For example, on Friday, people may historically
leave the office earlier, and traffic predictably suffers a 15 to 20
minute slow down between 6:00 PM and 7:00 PM on major
routes out of the city. Thus the speed of traffic at 5:45 PM may
provide an overly optimistic estimate of travel time between 6:00
PM and 7:00 PM for a person whose commute would normally
be 30 minutes.
Kalaboukis i-f 100. Kalaboukis concludes, "[T]he time it takes to traverse a
route, informed by real-time and historical data, and the impact of such
travel time on contemporaneous events can be determined for a specific
route or a group of routes." Id. i-f 104. In Kalaboukis, the use of historical
data relating to time of day and its effect on the speed of traversing a route
contemporaneously meets the limitation of claim 7, "determining the current
time of day and comparing the determined current time of day with the time
information identifying the time of day at which said first person traversed
the route." Accordingly, on the record presented, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7.
6
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
Appellants make the same arguments against the rejection of claim 17
as for claim 7. Appeal Br. 7-8. For the same reasons stated above, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17.
Claims 1-20 provisionally rejected for obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 131227, 751
All the claims in the appealed application were provisionally rejected
for obviousness-type double patenting in view of co-pending application
number 13/227,751. The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting is
intended to prevent the extension of the term of a patent by prohibiting the
issuance of the claims of a second patent that are not patentably distinct from
the claims of the first patent. GD Searle LLC v. Lupin Pharm., Inc., 790
F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Since the briefing in the instant appeal
was completed, application number 13/227,751 (filed September 8, 2011)
has been issued as U.S. Patent 9, 177 ,336 with a terminal disclaimer for any
term that may extend beyond the term of any patent that may be issued on
the appealed application. The terminal disclaimer also states that the '336
patent shall be enforceable only for and during such period that it and any
patent that may be issued on the appealed application are commonly owned.
Because the instant application was filed April 20, 2011, any patent that may
eventually issue on the pending application will expire before the term of
application number 13/22 7, 7 51, absent the disclaimer. The disclaimer filed
in application number 13/227, 7 51, therefore, eliminates any possible double
patenting. Accordingly, the provisional double patenting rejection is
reversed.
7
Appeal2014-009095
Application 13/090,554
DECISION
For the above reasons, the provisional double patenting rejection is
REVERSED, and the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is
AFFIRMED.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8