Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2021001297 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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. 15/664,006 07/31/2017 Ryan Charles Knudson RPS920170074- US-NP 18-41 8471 124906 7590 02/28/2022 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER MUNDUR, PADMAVATHI V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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): docket@splglaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com jleclair@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte RYAN CHARLES KNUDSON, RUSSELL SPEIGHT VANBLON, RODERICK ECHOLS, and JONATHAN GAITHER KNOX ________________ Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to selecting an electronic device based on delivery attributes. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Claim 16 is cancelled. Final Act. 2. Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 2 1. A method, comprising: under control of one or more processors configured with executable instructions: identifying a communication event; obtaining a first delivery attribute associated with a type of content of the communication event; obtaining multiple second delivery attributes from corresponding multiple electronic devices, the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device, wherein the multiple electronic devices are associated with a common user and the common user environment; identifying at least one of the multiple electronic devices available to provide a notification alert; selecting at least one of the electronic devices based on the first and second delivery attributes; generating the notification alert based on the communication event; and communicating the notification alert to the at least one of the electronic devices selected. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Srinivasan (US 2014/0195620 A1; published July 10, 2014) and Chan (US 2014/0095617 A1; published Apr. 3, 2014). Final Act. 2-8. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Srinivasan, Chan, and Yellepeddy (US 2009/0070881 A1; published Mar. 12, 2009). Final Act. 8-9. Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 3 The Examiner rejects claims 8, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Srinivasan, Chan, and Kau (US 2015/0052213 A1; published Feb. 19, 2015). Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner rejects claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Srinivasan, Chan, and Bostick (US 9,569,426 B1; issued Feb. 14, 2017). Final Act. 10-11. ANALYSIS I. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-15, and 18-22 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Srinivasan teaches detecting an occurrence of a notification event, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “identifying a communication event” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Srinivasan, Abstract); Final Act. 3 (citing Srinivasan, Abstract). The Examiner finds Srinivasan teaches notifying a user of receiving a text message to devices with specific software tailored to receives these notification text messages, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “obtaining a first delivery attribute associated with a type of content of the communication event” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23, 40; Srinivasan ¶ 45); Final Act. 3 (citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 2, 24, 40). Moreover, the Examiner finds Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “obtaining multiple second delivery attributes from corresponding multiple electronic devices, the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 7, 23, 35, 45, 50, 64; Srinivasan ¶¶ 42, 43); Final Act. 3 (Srinivasan ¶¶ 3, 14, 15, 42, 43, Abstract). Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 4 Appellant argues Srinivasan fails to teach “identifying a communication event” and “obtaining a first delivery attribute associated with a type of content of the communication event” because Srinivasan merely teaches a server-side, network-based marketplace application that provides marketplace functions and notifications to users. Appeal Br. 13- 17. In addition, Appellant argues Srinivasan merely teaches routing messages based on timing and frequency of use of user device, but fails to teach “obtaining multiple second delivery attributes from corresponding multiple electronic devices, the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device.” Appeal Br. 17-18. Additionally, Appellant argues Srinivasan merely teaches making predictions about the user’s preferred device for receiving notifications based on past behavior and routing notifications based thereon at the time notifications are transmitted, but fails to teach the presence or absence of non-users. Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues Chan fails to rectify Srinivasan’s shortcomings because Chan merely teaches a proxy server that facilitates either transmitting a push notification for later transmission based on proximity of multiple computing devices to each other. Appeal Br. 18-19. We disagree with Appellant. Srinivasan teaches detecting (i.e., identifying) an occurrence of a notification event (i.e., communication event), which teaches the limitation “identifying a communication event” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5 (citing Srinivasan, Abstract); Final Act. 3 (citing Srinivasan, Abstract). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Srinivasan merely teaches routing messages based on timing and frequency of use of user Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 5 device, but fails to teach “obtaining multiple second delivery attributes from corresponding multiple electronic devices, the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device.” Appeal Br. 17-18. The Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 5-6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23, 40; Srinivasan ¶¶ 40, 45), with Final Act. 3 (lacking a citation to Spec. ¶¶ 23, 40; Srinivasan ¶ 45). Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not rebut sufficiently the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of Srinivasan. Also, paragraph 23 of the Specification states that a first delivery attributes includes personal content that dictates how the content is to be delivered to the user based on the environment surrounding the user. Spec. ¶ 23. We note claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations[,] . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982); see In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts. . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Similar to paragraph 23 of the Specification, Srinivasan teaches notifying a user of receiving a text message (i.e., communication event) to devices with specific software tailored to receive these notification text Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 6 messages (i.e., first delivery attribute), which teaches the limitation “obtaining a first delivery attribute associated with a type of content of the communication event” recited in claim 1. Ans. 5-6 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23, 40; Srinivasan ¶¶ 40, 45); Final Act. 3 (citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 2, 24, 40). Furthermore, the Specification directs where and when a personal notification should be delivered to a user device based on factors such as user history with the user device or the environment of a device. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 23, 35, 45, 50, 64. Moreover, claim 1 requires that the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device. Similarly, Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use (i.e., a non-user presence) and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user and sending notifications to devices with specific software tailored (i.e., an environment for the corresponding electronic device) to receive these notification text messages (i.e., second delivery attributes), which teaches the limitation “obtaining multiple second delivery attributes from corresponding multiple electronic devices, the second delivery attributes related to one or more of a user proximity, a non-user presence, and an environment for the corresponding electronic device” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 7, 23, 35, 45, 50, 64; Srinivasan ¶¶ 42, 43); Final Act. 3 (Srinivasan ¶¶ 3, 14, 15, 42, 43, Abstract). Appellant does not argue claims 2, 3, 6-9, 12-15 and 18-22 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 19-39. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 9, and 15; and (2) dependent claims 2, 3, 6-8, 12-14 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 7 II. Claims 4 and 10 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user to determine where and when to route the message; the message may be routed to a device that has specific tailored software to receive the notification, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic detected at the environment for the corresponding multiple electronic devices, or proximity of the user to the DPA device” recited in claim 4. Ans. 8 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 45); Final Act. 6 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 42; Chan ¶ 7). Appellant argues Srinivasan merely teaches a historic timing or frequency of use of devices or identifications of used or most-used device, but fails to teach “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic detected at the environment for the corresponding multiple electronic devices, or proximity of the user to the DPA device” recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 19-20. We disagree with Appellant. As discussed in the preceding section, the Specification directs where and when a personal notification should be delivered to a user device based on factors such as user history with the user device or the environment of a device. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 23, 35, 45, 50, 64. Similarly, Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user to determine where and when to route the message (i.e., determining at least one of the second delivery attributes); the message may be routed to a device that has specific tailored software to receive the notification (i.e., based on a characteristic detected at Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 8 the environment, or proximity), which teaches the limitation “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic detected at the environment for the corresponding multiple electronic devices, or proximity of the user to the DPA device” recited in claim 4. Ans. 8 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 45); Final Act. 6 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 42). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. III. Claims 5, 11, and 17 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 The Examiner finds Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user to determine where and when to route the message; the message may be routed to a device that has specific tailored software to receive the notification, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic of a user environment that impedes detection of the notification alert” recited in claim 5. Ans. 8 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 45); Final Act. 6-7 (citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 3, 42; Chan ¶ 7). Appellant argues Srinivasan merely teaches a historic timing or frequency of use of devices or identifications of used or most-used device, but fails to teach “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic of a user environment that impedes detection of the notification alert” recited in claim 4. Appeal Br. 20-21. We disagree with Appellant. As discussed in the preceding section, the Specification directs where and when a personal notification should be delivered to a user device based on factors such as user history with the user device or the environment of a Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 9 device. Spec. ¶¶ 7, 23, 35, 45, 50, 64. Similarly, Srinivasan teaches recording timing and frequency of use and recording a last device used by a user or the device most often used by the user to determine where and when to route the message (i.e., determining at least one of the second delivery attributes); the message may be routed to a device that has specific tailored software to receive the notification and not sent to the devices that do not have this software (i.e., impedes the detection of the notification alert at the devices that do not have this tailored software), which teaches the limitation “determining at least one of the second delivery attributes based on a characteristic of a user environment that impedes detection of the notification alert” recited in claim 5. Ans. 8 (citing Srinivasan ¶ 45); Final Act. 6-7 (citing Srinivasan ¶¶ 3, 42; Chan ¶ 7). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived/forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). Appeal 2021-001297 Application 15/664,006 10 CONCLUSION 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, 21 103 Srinivasan, Chan 1, 2, 4-7, 9-13, 15, 17-19, 21 3 103 Srinivasan, Chan, Yellepeddy 3 8, 14, 20 103 Srinivasan, Chan, Kau 8, 14, 20 22 103 Srinivasan, Chan, Bostick 22 Overall Outcome 1-15, 17- 22