Ex Parte Aghasaryan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2017

12447593 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2017)

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.
12/447,593 02/03/2010 Armen Aghasaryan LUTZ 201012US01 5061
48116 7590 08/01/2017
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2017 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 @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMEN AGHASARYAN, MARIE-PASCALE DUPONT, and
STEPHANE BETGE-BREZETZ
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOYCE CRAIG, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—7, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to a “[cjomputer program product
comprising instructions to carry out profiling of a telecommunications
services user in a multi-platform environment.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for profiling a telecommunications services user in
a multi-platform environment, wherein said method comprises:
— providing to the user access to a plurality of service delivery
platforms,
— providing to the user a user interface,
— gathering via said interface explicit user profiling information
including one or more preferences of the user;
— establishing implicit user profiling information including data
indicative of behaviour of the user when accessing services
originating from said platforms;
— aggregating said data;
— based on said explicit and implicit user profiling
information, establishing a user profile comprising:
— core attributes independent of the service platforms, and
— specialized attributes depending on the platforms that are
present in the environment; and
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (See App.
Br. 1.)
2
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
— designating a profile data vector including a list of
characteristics describing the established user profile.
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Oldale et al. US 2004/0054572 A1 Mar. 18, 2004
Bellifemine et al. US 2006/0195583 Al Aug. 31, 2006
Adams et al. US 2007/0266031 Al Nov. 15, 2007
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 “because the
claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.” (See Final
Act. 10-11.)
2. Claims 1,5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bellifemine, Adams, and Oldale. (See Final Act. 11—18.)
3. Claims 2—\ and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bellifemine and Adams. (See Final Act. 18—24.)
ANALYSIS
Section 101
The Examiner rejects the claims under Section 101 as “directed to the
abstract idea of profiling users” and because “the claims do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception because the generically recited computer elements do
not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea” and “the generically
3
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
recited computer elements would be routine in any computer
implementation.” (Final Act. 10.) We agree.
Claim 1, for example, describes a method that (1) provides a user
interface to a plurality of service delivery platforms, (2) gathers “explicit”
profile information from a user and “implicit” profile information based on
user behavior, (3) combines the explicit and implicit information into a
profile that includes platform independent attributes and attributes dependent
on the platforms, and (4) designates a “profile data vector” that includes a
list of characteristics describing the user profile. Essentially, the claimed
method collects two types of data about a user and stores it in a profile,
adding a vector with a list of characteristics describing the profile.
We agree with the Examiner that these claims are closely analogous to
the method claims for generating a “device profile” comprised of two sets of
data that were considered and held ineligible in Digitech Image Techs., LLC
v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). As explained by
the Federal Circuit in that case, “[wjithout additional limitations, a process
that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible.” 758 F.3d at 1351.
We do not find the instant claims to include any eligibility saving
“additional limitations.”
Appellants offer a series of arguments regarding Section 101, which
we address in the order raised.
They first argue “the Office Action does not provide any support [for
the finding that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of profiling users]
and thus fails to establish a prima facie case that the claim is for an abstract
idea.” (App. Br. 7.) This argument is not persuasive because the USPTO
4
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
carries its procedural burden when its rejection satisfies the requirements of
35U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of the reasons for rejection,
‘“together with such information and references as may be useful in judging
of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.’” In re
Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (brackets in original, quoting 35
U.S.C. § 132). Here, the Examiner notified Appellants that the claims are
directed to an ineligible abstract idea, specifically, “the abstract idea of
profiling users” and that “the claims do not include additional elements that
are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful
limitation to the abstract idea.” (Final Act. 10.) Thus, Appellants have been
notified of the reasons for the rejection with such information “as may be
useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the]
application,” which is all that is required.
Appellants next argue “the claims recite features that make them
amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.” (App. Br. 8.) We do
not agree. The instant claims collect the data into a profile but nothing in the
claims puts that data or profile to use. The advantages touted by Appellants
on pages 8 and 9 of the Appeal Brief are not embodied in the claims.
Appellants also argue “the claims go beyond simply retrieving and
combining data using a computer.” (App. Br. 9—10.) We are unpersuaded
because the fact that the data is of a particular type, or is supplemented, is
insufficient to render the claims eligible for patenting.
Appellants further argue that the claims “provide an inventive concept
since they overcome any rejections under sections 102 and 103.” (App. Br.
11.) That argument is misplaced because even though the § 101 patent-
5
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
eligibility inquiry and the prior art inquiries might sometimes overlap, a
novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless, ineligible. Cf. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1303 (2012) (rejecting the suggestion that Sections
102, 103, and 112 might perform the appropriate screening function and
noting that in Mayo such an approach “would make the ‘law of nature’
exception ... a dead letter”); see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Reyna, J., dissenting)
(“The inventiveness inquiry of § 101 should . . . not be confused with the
separate novelty inquiry of § 102 or the obviousness inquiry of § 103.”).
Finally, Appellants argue “the present claims do not unduly preempt
the field of the invention.” (App. Br. 11.) This is not a persuasive argument
because, although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015). We are instructed that “[wjhere a patent’s claims are deemed only to
disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the [Alice/Mayo] framework .
. ., preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Because we find Appellants’ arguments insufficient to show Examiner
error, we sustain the rejections of claims 1—7 under Section 101.
Section 103: Claims 1, 5, and 6
Appellants argue that the combination of Bellifemine, Adams, and
Oldale fails to disclose “designating a profile data vector including a list of
characteristics describing the established user profile,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claim 5. (See App. Br. 14.) In particular, Appellants
assert that Oldale does not disclose the claimed subject matter because
6
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
“[njowhere does it state that a vector is designated which includes a list of
characteristic [s] describing the profile itself’ and “the vector disclosed by
Oldale is NOT a list of characteristic [s] describing an established user
profile (as is claimed), but rather the vector disclosed by Oldale is a list of
levels for each of a number of unobservable characteristics of the user or
object to which the vector relates.” {Id. at 15.)
The Examiner responds that “paragraph 226 of Oldale discloses that
the user profile is described by a vector having a number of profile
characteristics, which reads on the claimed limitation because the prior art
vector designates data for a user profile, wherein the vector is made up of
components/characteristics that describe the user.” (Ans. 17.)
We agree with the Examiner. Oldale describes the use of “an
Unobserved Attribute Model (UAM)” which “starts from the assumption
that users and objects can be described by vectors that list their level of each
of a number of (unobservable) characteristics.” (Oldale 225—26.) Thus,
“af would give user i’s level of characteristic x, and bf would give object j’s
level of characteristic y.” {Id. 1226.) The “characteristics together
determine the observations in the user-history data-base,” an example being
“where [the] data base holds information on whether a user has been to a
London visitor attraction or not.” {Id. 1227.) Oldale thus describes
representing a set of user characteristics (e.g., visits to particular London
attractions) using a vector. The set of characteristics corresponds to the
claimed profile, and that profile is represented by a vector. We thus sustain
the Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6.
7
Appeal 2016-007868
Application 12/447,593
Section 103: Claims 2—4 and 7
Regarding claims 2—4 and 7, Appellants argue Bellifemine does not
disclose that “user behaviour characteristics are gathered, and wherein such
data can be supplement [ed] with additional useful data” or that “existing
user models are supplied to new services.” (App. Br. 16.)
The Examiner responds that “[pjaragraph 66 of Bellifemine discloses
supplementing user behavior characteristics with ‘additional useful data’”
and that “paragraphs 91 and 135 disclose updating the user profile in
response to monitoring a user’s interactions.” (Ans. 18.)
We agree with the Examiner that Bellifemine’s paragraph 91 discloses
gathering user behavior and supplementing data (“the user modeling engine .
. . by constantly monitoring the user’s interactions with the user terminal
310, updates, refines and improves the complete user model 321”) and that
paragraph 136 discloses supplying user models to new services (“the user
model 310 supplied to the new service server is a fully trained one, that is a
user model already shaped with a history of the user’s habits”). We
accordingly sustain the Section 103 rejections of claims 2-4 and 7.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. The
rejections of claims 1—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8