Expensify, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 23, 2022

2021000769 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 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. 15/415,856 01/25/2017 David M. Barrett ENFY.P107 9809 30554 7590 02/23/2022 MAHAMEDI IP LAW LLP 910 Campisi Way, Suite 1E Campbell, CA 95008 EXAMINER MCCRAY, CLARENCE D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2458 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2022 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): uspto@m-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID M. BARRETT and MELISSA AARON Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20. Appeal Br. 3. Claims 7-10 and 17-19 are cancelled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed Jan. 25, 2017 (“Spec.”); the Final Office Action, mailed Mar. 10, 2020 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief, filed June 1, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Sept. 14, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 10, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). 2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Expensify, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 2 II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a computer system that initiates an autonomous chat including an interactive voice response (IVR) system of a third party, upon receiving from a user a chat input including a request to navigate a desired target the IVR system, and determines a search criterion from the chat input and selects a chat response from a chat library, which it communicates to the user. Spec. ¶¶ 6- 7, 42. Figure 1, reproduced below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 3 Figure 1 above depicts network system 10 for providing intelligent machine-generated or assisted information to users through a computer implemented chat interface augmented by an IVR system. Spec. ¶ 3. In particular, network system 10 includes core services 40 (such as a user account service 42), a controller 60, and a chat engine 100 triggered to initiate chats (or individual sessions with users) in response to events generated by user interface 52 or activity monitor 54. Id. ¶ 15. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. Claim 1, with disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative: 1. A computer system comprising: a network communication interface to communicate, over one or more networks, with (i) a computing device of a user, and (ii) an interactive voice response (IVR) system of a third party; one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to: receive, over the one or more networks, a chat input from the computing device of the user, the chat input including a request to navigate the IVR system of the third party, the request further indicating a desired target of the IVR system for the user; and initiate an interactive session with the IVR system to autonomously navigate through a customer support tree of the IVR system and attain the desired target for the user; wherein the executed instructions cause the computer system to (i) automatically complete the request for the user through the interactive session with the IVR system of the third party, and (ii) when the request is automatically completed, transmit, over the one or more networks, a response message to the computing device of the user, the response message providing Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 4 the user with contextual information corresponding to the request being automatically completed. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). III. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3 Name Reference Date Forsee, II US 2013/0204834 A1 Aug. 8, 2013 Palakovich US 2016/0099892 A1 Apr. 7, 2016 IV. REJECTION Claims 1-6, 11-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Forsee and Palakovich. Final Act. 5. V. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-10 and the Reply Brief, pages 2-7.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017); see also In re Google Technology Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020) citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733 (1993) (“forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right” whereas “waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right”) (additional citations omitted). Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 5 Brief.5 Final Act. 5-14; Ans. 3-6. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. Regarding claim 1, Appellant argues Forsee and Palakovich do not teach or suggest “receive, over the one or more networks, a chat input from the computing device of the user, the chat input including a request to navigate the IVR system of the third party, the request further indicating a desired target of the IVR system for the user.” Appeal Br. 7-8. Appellant specifically argues “on the customer side, Forsee merely describes a customer manually navigating through the tree until a desired destination is ultimately arrived upon.” Id. at 7. The Examiner finds Forsee’s IVR system receives and responds to customer interactions by receiving and sending data to customers through networks by using a decision tree for analyzing information of the user and determining which action to take with respect to that use, based on inputs such as chat. Forsee ¶ 23; Final Act. 6; Ans. 3-4. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because Forsee’s decision trees managing user/customer interactions such as chat, teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation. Forsee ¶ 23. Furthermore, Appellant’s argument that Forsee describes a customer as merely “manually navigating” through the tree is not persuasive because Forsee’s execution engine 220 executes the decision tree. See id. 5 See ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Strava, Inc., 849 F.3d 1034, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“As an initial matter, the PTAB was authorized to incorporate the Examiner’s findings.”); see also In re Brana, 51 F.3d 1560, 1564 n.13 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (upholding the PTAB’s findings, although it “did not expressly make any independent factual determinations or legal conclusions,” because it had expressly adopted the examiner’s findings). Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 6 Moreover, to the extent that Appellant’s argued limitations encompass automation features, under § 103, a claimed subject matter is not patentable if it merely automates a prior art process. Broadly providing an automatic way to replace a manual activity accomplishing the same result is not sufficient to distinguish an automated process over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95 (CCPA 1958). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) (indicating that an improved product in the art is obvious if that “product [is] not [one] of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.”). Appellant next argues the combination of Forsee and Palakovich does not teach or suggest the following: wherein the executed instructions cause the computer system to (i) automatically complete the request for the user through the interactive session with the IVR system of the third party, and (ii) when the request is automatically completed, transmit, over the one or more networks, a response message to the computing device of the user, the response message providing the user with contextual information corresponding to the request being automatically completed.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellant specifically argues: Specifically, Palakovich’s focus is to supplement “live agents” (humans) that are current [sic] chatting with users with “virtual agents” that handle “the bulk of data collection tasks normally reserved for a live agent.” See Palakovich, ¶[0044]. Accordingly, in Palakovich, the customer is on the line or chat throughout the entirety, while the customer service end switches between “live agents” and “virtual agents” depending on “escalations” and “de-escalations” of the chat. See id. at ¶¶ [0024]-[0032], [0038], [0043]-[0044]. This is distinct from a customer-side tool that “(i) automatically complete[s] the request Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 7 for the user through the interactive session with the IVR system of the third party,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error. The Examiner relies upon Palakovich for its teaching of the disputed limitation “automatically complete the request for the user through the interactive session with the IVR system of the third party.” Ans. 6 (citing Palakovich ¶¶ 27-33, 39, 64-67, 82). Palakovich’s virtual agent in an IVR system completes interactive chat sessions with customers in de-escalated settings. Palakovich ¶ 29. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because Palakovich’s disclosure of using live agents in escalated settings does not imply that its virtual agents do not “automatically complete the request for the user through the interactive session with the IVR system of the third party” in de-escalated settings. We are satisfied that, on the record before us, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that the combination of Forsee and Palakovich teaches the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over the combination of Forsee and Palakovich. Regarding the rejection of claims 2-6, 11-16, and 20, Appellant either does not present separate patentability arguments, or reiterates substantially the same arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. Appeal Br. 10. As such, claims 2-6, 11-16, and 20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-000769 Application 15/415,856 8 On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6, 11- 16, and 20. VII. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-6, 11-16, 20 103 Forsee, Palakovich 1-6, 11-16, 20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED