Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2022

2020004053 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 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. 15/839,048 12/12/2017 Amber Autrey Taylor 170117-1151 3628 71247 7590 02/02/2022 Client 170101 c/o THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP 3200 WINDY HILL RD SE SUITE 1600E ATLANTA, GA 30339 EXAMINER HUYNH, AN SON PHI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2022 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): docketing@thip.law uspatents@tkhr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AMBER AUTREY TAYLOR, JON DARREN FLEMING, JOHN DEVLIN LYNCH, DANIEL THOMAS MELLOTT, BRENT ROBERT MILLS, LIZA MARIE WALSH, and GARY ALEXANDER CAMPBELL Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and BARBARA A. BENOIT, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, 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 1, 3-7, and 9-22. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Amazon Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “[b]roadcaster tools for interactive shopping interfaces.” Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system, comprising: a first computing device; and at least one application executable in the first computing device, wherein, when executed, the at least one application causes the first computing device to at least: receive a live video stream from at least one second computing device, the live video stream corresponding to a program that features one or more items being offered for order via an electronic commerce system, and the live video stream being streamed to a plurality of third computing devices via the at least one second computing device; generate a first user interface configured to facilitate control of the live video stream and an interactive interface that are both being rendered on the plurality of third computing devices via a second user interface; render the live video stream via the first user interface; determine a plurality of actions that can be performed with respect to at least one of: the live video stream being rendered via the second user interface, the interactive interface being rendered via the second user interface, or the first user interface, wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions comprises injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface, wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one or more items to be saved for future reference; Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 3 generate a plurality of statistics associated with at least a plurality of users consuming the live video stream being rendered via the plurality of third computing devices, wherein the plurality of statistics comprise at least one of: a number of orders placed for a particular item, a number of times the particular item has been added to a shopping list, or a number of units of the particular item that remain in stock; modify the first user interface to include the plurality of statistics and a plurality of components, individual components of the plurality of components corresponding to a respective action of the plurality of actions; receive, via the first user interface, an input associated with a particular component of the plurality of components; and cause the respective action for the particular component to be performed in response to receiving the input. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Taylor ’249 US 9,883,249 B2 Jan. 30, 2018 Taylor ’819 US 9,973,819 B1 May 15, 2018 Berezowski US 2002/0056087 A1 May 9, 2002 Zimmerman US 2003/0066074 A1 Apr. 3, 2003 Shanks US 2009/0073318 A1 Mar. 19, 2009 Athsani US 2009/0148124 A1 June 11, 2009 Andrews II US 2009/0276805 A1 Nov. 5, 2009 Gay US 2010/0321389 A1 Dec. 23, 2010 Tinsman US 2013/0031582 A1 Jan. 31, 2013 Bauman WO 2014/130594 A1 Aug. 28, 2014 Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 4 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bauman and Tinsman. Final Act. 5-20. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bauman, Tinsman, and Athsani. Final Act. 20-21. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bauman, Tinsman, and either Zimmerman or Shanks or Berezowski. Final Act. 21- 22. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of Taylor ’249. Final Act. 24. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-20 of Taylor ’819. Final Act. 24-25. OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9-21 over Bauman and Tinsman The Examiner finds Bauman and Tinsman teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5-11; see also Ans. 24-29. In particular, the Examiner finds Bauman, and in the alternative, Tinsman, teaches determine a plurality of actions that can be performed with respect to at least one of: the live video stream being rendered via the second user interface, the interactive interface being rendered via the second user interface, or the first user interface, wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions comprises injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface, Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 5 wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one or more items to be saved for future reference; (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Bauman Figs. 2, 8, 12, ¶¶ 40, 42-44, 55, Tinsman Figs. 1-2, 4, 7-10, 15-18, 21-26, 30- 37, ¶¶ 43, 53, 58, 90-91, 98, 106, 121-122, 138, 161, 174, 176); see also Final Act. 3-4 (responding to Appellant’s previous arguments). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: Bauman and Tinsman do not teach determine a plurality of actions that can be performed with respect to at least one of: the live video stream being rendered via the second user interface, the interactive interface being rendered via the second user interface, or the first user interface, wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions comprises injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface, wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one or more items to be saved for future reference; (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 8. Regarding Bauman, Appellant argues Bauman illustrates a video-chat interface in Figure 12 but does not suggest injecting a selectable item component as recited. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues “claim 1 recites ‘the one or more items’ in combination with ‘one or more items being offered for order via an electronic commerce system,’ which under [broadest reasonable interpretation] should not be interpreted to read on ‘a name of host, a link to [a non-government organization website], a discussion/chat topic, etc.,’ [in Bauman] as alleged by the Office Action.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further argues “[m]erely ‘stor[ing] in [a] database’ or ‘sav[ing] as [a] number of requests,’ as the Office Action alleges of Bauman, fails to Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 6 show or suggest ‘injecting a selectable item component,’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 10; see also id. at 11-12; Reply Br. 5-7. Regarding Tinsman, Appellant argues Tinsman does not cure the alleged deficiency of Bauman. Appeal Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 8-9. Regarding the combination, Appellant argues A “website 110” (Bauman, para. 0031) in view of the ability to “access hot spots” (Tinsman, para. 0072) and “click on [a] hot label to order a pizza from that advertised store” (Tinsman, para. 0091) does not show or suggest “injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface,” as recited in claim 1, without relying on the claim as a roadmap for selecting and modifying the teachings. Appeal Br. 14. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant’s arguments on appeal raise the issue of whether or not the cited references teach the following argued limitation: determine a plurality of actions that can be performed with respect to at least one of: the live video stream being rendered via the second user interface, the interactive interface being rendered via the second user interface, or the first user interface, wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions comprises injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface, wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one or more items to be saved for future reference; (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 7 We have considered the record before us, and we determine Bauman, when combined with Tinsman, teaches this argued limitation. Regarding a portion of Bauman that we find particularly relevant, on page 7 of the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the following: In Bauman, for example, FIG. 8 depicts and para. 0051 describes “exemplary interface elements that may be available to the user when he or she logs into website 110.” Although para. 0051 of Bauman states that “[i]con 811, upon being clicked on, allows the user to add the host to his or her wish list,” the interface element(s) and/or icon 811 is not “a selectable item component,” as recited in claim 1 (among other elements in combination), at least because selecting the icon 811 does not “cause [] one or more items [available for order via an electronic commerce system] to be saved for future reference,” as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 7. Bauman discloses FIG. 8 illustrates other exemplary interface elements that may be available to the user when he or she logs into website 110. Information of various hosts is displayed, which includes elements 805 (the name), 806 (a short biography), 809 (minimum amount of payment required to make a request for a communication event), 808 (time remaining for making the request), and 815 (a NGO designated by the host to receive the proceeds). Icon 807, upon being clicked on, allows the user to activate an action (e.g. making a payment) specified by the host, which then triggers the method (e.g. making a monetary transfer) designated by the host. Icon 810, upon being clicked on, allows the user to gift a request (processed after the method is executed) to another user. Icon 811, upon being clicked on, allows the user to add the host to his or her wish list. In addition, information of potential hosts is also displayed, which includes elements 816 (the name), 817 (a short biography), and 813 (number of requests for host received). Icon 814, upon being clicked on, allows the user to make a request to the person to become host, and host Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 8 request database 227f can be updated accordingly. Icons 812 represent links to popular social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, where the user can join an existing request for that person to become a host. In addition, element 801 allows the user to “submit a cause” which, in this particular embodiment, allows the user to submit a NGO to the website. Upon approval, the NGO will be eligible to be designated by a host to receive contribution by the user as he or she made the request for a communication event. Besides, element 802 leads a person to host function interface 223g to apply to be a host, while element 804 allows a person to “suggest a wiz”, which starts the process of searching for a host and update or create a request for a host, as shown in FIG. 3. Bauman ¶ 51 (emphasis added), cited at Final Act. 3. We determine this disclosure in Bauman describes determine a plurality of actions that can be performed with respect to at least one of: the live video stream being rendered via the second user interface, the interactive interface being rendered via the second user interface, or the first user interface, wherein at least one action of the plurality of actions comprises injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface, wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one or more items to be saved for future reference; (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1 because Figure 8 of Bauman depicts an interactive interface where a plurality of actions can be performed (for example, icon 810 gifts a request to another user, icon 811 adds the host to a user’s wish list). The action of adding a host to a user’s wish list (icon 811) describes “injecting a selectable item component and item information about the one or more items into the interactive interface” (icon 811 is a selectable item component, name 805 and biography 806 are host (item) information), and “wherein the selectable item component, when selected, causes the one Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 9 or more items to be saved for future reference” (selecting icon 811 saves the item for future reference because the host (item) is added to the user’s wish list), as recited in claim 1. Regarding “the one or more items” recited in the argued limitation, which refers to the “one or more items being offered for order via an electronic commerce system” recited, earlier, in claim 1, and Appellant’s argument that “the one or more items” should not be interpreted to read on elements of Bauman because Bauman does not describe items offered for order via an electronic commerce system, Appellant’s arguments do not show any error because they only focus on the references individually. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Tinsman teaches “one or more items being offered for order via an electronic commerce system” (claim 1). Final Act. 10 (citing Tinsman Figures 7-10, ¶¶ 93, 101, 103, 113, 144). When this teaching of Tinsman is combined with the teachings of Bauman, the argued limitation is taught, including the “one or more items being offered for order via an electronic commerce system” (claim 1). The Examiner provides a reason to combine the teachings of Bauman and Tinsman that is rational on its face and supported by evidence drawn from the record. Final Act. 11 (“in order to yield predictable result such as Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 10 improving convenience for ordering produce or service using electronic commerce system.”). We agree with and adopt this reasoning as our own. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 7, and 21, which are not separately argued with particularity. Appeal Br. 14-15; see also Reply Br. 9. Appellant presents the same principal arguments for claims 9-15 as presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 15-22; see also Reply Br. 9-14. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-15 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1. Appellant presents the same principal arguments for claims 16-20 as presented for claim 1. Appeal Br. 22-30; see also Reply Br. 14-19. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16-20 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 5 over Bauman, Tinsman, and Athsani Appellant argues Athsani “fails to overcome the deficiencies of Bauman and Tinsman with respect to the rejection of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 30. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1. Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 11 The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 22 over Bauman, Tinsman, and either Zimmerman or Shanks or Berezowski Appellant argues the additional cited references “fail to overcome the deficiencies of Bauman and Tinsman with respect to the rejection of claim 1.” Appeal Br. 31. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22 for the same reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1. The Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 over Claims 1-20 of Taylor ’249 Appellant does not present arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6-31; see also Reply Br. 3-19. We, therefore, summarily sustain this ground of rejection in this proceeding. The Non-statutory Obviousness-type Double Patenting Rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 over Claims 1-20 of Taylor ’819 Appellant does not present arguments for this ground of rejection. See Appeal Br. 6-31; see also Reply Br. 3-19. We, therefore, summarily sustain this ground of rejection in this proceeding. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-7, and 9-22 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-004053 Application 15/839,048 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-21 103 Bauman, Tinsman 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-21 5 103 Bauman, Tinsman, Athsani 5 22 103 Bauman, Tinsman, Zimmerman or Shanks or Berezowski 22 1, 3-7, 9-22 Obviousness-type Double Patenting, U.S. Patent No. 9,883,249 1, 3-7, 9-22 1, 3-7, 9-22 Obviousness-type Double Patenting, U.S. Patent No. 9,973,819 1, 3-7, 9-22 Overall Outcome 1, 3-7, 9-22 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