Ex Parte AGRAWAL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14230676 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/230,676 03/31/2014
49267 7590 08/02/2018
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DAKSHI AGRAWAL
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.
YOR920131095US1
(163-813)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1340
EXAMINER
BOCCIO, VINCENT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAKSHI AGRAWAL, RAGHU K. GANTI,
MUDHAKAR SRIV ATSA, and PETROS ZERFOS
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,67 6
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. Claims App 'x. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "mapping and, in particular,
to fast and accurate geomapping." Spec. ,r 2. Appellants' Specification
provides that "geomapping" is "finding the 'K-closest' objects that lie in the
area within a certain distance (radius) from a given location" such as, for
example, finding the twenty closest restaurants within a one-mile radius
from the location of a user. Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A method for discovering k-nearest-neighbors to a given
point within a certain distance d, the method comprising the steps
of:
constructing an index of geometries using geohashes of
geometries as an indexing key to obtain an indexed set of
geometries;
calculating a geohash representation of the given point
with a resolution equal to a magnitude value of the certain
distanced;
searching for a closest-prefix geometry from the indexed
set of geometries using the geohash representation of the given
point;
identifying geometries from the indexed set of geometries
that have a same prefix as the closest-prefix geometry;
calculating distances between the given point and the
geometries identified from the indexed set of geometries that
have the same prefix as the closest-prefix geometry; and
determining k geometries with respective shortest
distances less than d from the geometries identified from the
indexed set of geometries that have the same prefix as the
closest-prefix geometry.
2
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Merriman et al. US 2012/0226889 Al
Bogosian US 2015/0058390 Al
Rejections
Sept. 6, 2012
Feb.26,2015
Claims 1---6 and 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Merriman. Final Act. 11-17.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Merriman. Final Act. 18-19.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Merriman and Bogosian. Final
Act. 19-20.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Merriman discloses "calculating a
geohash representation of the given point with a resolution equal to a
magnitude value of the certain distanced," as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-6 and 11-17 under 35 US.C. § 102
Appellants do not substantively argue claims 1---6 and 11-1 7
separately, but instead rely on the same arguments for all claims. See App.
Br. 13-22. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim. Remaining claims 2-6 and
11-17 stand or fall together with claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
Appellants contend Merriman fails to disclose "calculating a geohash
representation of the given point with a resolution equal to a magnitude
value of the certain distanced," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-21.
According to Appellants, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand
the term "resolution," in light of the Specification, as referring to "the
number of characters used to represent a geocode" and, therefore, claim 1
requires that the number of characters of a geocode representation calculated
in accordance with claim 1 "is constrained, limited, and/or otherwise forced
to be equal to a magnitude of the certain distanced." App. Br. 14--15 (citing
Spec. ,r 17). Appellants argue Merriman discloses determining an
identification boundary based on the length of a prefix, "while in [ claim 1 ], a
distance dis already known and it is from this distance d, namely its
magnitude, that the resolution of the geohash representation of the given
point is calculated." App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue:
Regarding paragraph [0004] of Merriman, the same
simply discloses the following in pertinent part: "The system can
compute larger and larger boundaries by generalizing the hash
value of the point of interest ( e.g., by replacing the low order bits
with pad values).["] However, there is no mentioning in
paragraph [0004] of Merriman of a particular resolution being
used to generalize the hash value of the point of interest, let alone
that such resolution is equal to the magnitude value of a certain
distanced within which k-nearest-neighbors are to be discovered.
App. Br. 18-19.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Appellants'
Specification provides:
Each geohash string represents a lat-Ion box (latitude-longitude
box), where a set of such boxes can be used to compactly cover
any geometry. The geohash representation of these lat-Ion boxes
has the following property: if geohash string h is a prefix of h ',
4
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
then the lat-Ion box represented by h covers the lat-Ion box
represented by h '.
Spec. ,r 20. The Specification, therefore, describes a geohash string as a
series of characters with the first character representing an initial, or first,
lat-Ion box that covers a smaller, second lat-Ion box represented by the
second character (e.g., the second lat-long box is located within the first lat-
Ion box) and each subsequent character representing a smaller lat-Ion box
that is covered by, or within, each lat-Ion box represented by preceding
characters of the geohash string.
With respect to the resolution a geohash string, as acknowledged by
Appellants (App. Br. 14--15), the Specification provides "[t]he adaptive
resolution property of geohash involves the capability to remove characters
from the end of a geocode to reduce the size of the geocode which also has
the effect of reducing the precision of the geocode." Spec. 17. As such,
consistent with the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
"calculating a geohash representation of the given point with a resolution
equal to a magnitude value of the certain distance r!' includes removing
characters from a geohash representation of the given point such that the last
character of the calculated geohash representation represents an area (e.g., a
lat-Ion box) covering the certain distanced from the given point.
Merriman describes a process for "identifying candidate data units
based on a spatial index." Merriman ,r 64. The process includes receiving
location information identifying a point of interest and computing a distance
threshold associated with the location information. Id. For example, "a user
entering a location-based query defines a point of interest and a distance
from the point of interest as part of a location-based request." Merriman
,r 65. Merriman discloses generating an identification boundary that
5
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
"defines an area including the geohash values that are within the computed
distance threshold." The Examiner finds, and we agree, Merriman discloses
generating the identification boundary by calculating a geohash string for a
location of interest and replacing the low order bits of the geohash string
with pad values (e.g., removing characters from the end of the geohash
string). Ans. 5---6 (citing Merriman ,r 4); see also Merriman ,r,r 66-70.
Merriman, therefore, discloses removing characters from a geohash
representation of the given point such that the last character of the geohash
representation represents an area covering the distance from the point of
interest. As such, Merriman discloses the disputed limitation.
Appellants' argument that "to the extent that a stopping condition is
mention [sic], it is directed to and necessarily involves the computation of
two areas, namely ( 1) the area of the identification boundary and (2) the
search area, as well as a comparison between the two areas, and further
involves padding" (App. Br. 19) is not persuasive because claim 1 does not
prohibit performing these steps.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 2---6 and 11-17, which fall with claim 1.
Rejections under 35 USC§ 103
Regarding the rejection of dependent claims 7-10 and 18-20,
Appellants argue the additional references cited in the rejections of these
claims do not teach the contested limitations of the independent claims.
App. Br. 23-27. For the reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding Merriman teaches those limitations. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claim 7-10 and 18-20.
6
Appeal2018-000120
Application 14/230,676
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6 and 11-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 7-10 and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
7