Ex Parte Baskaran et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13873552 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/873,552 04/30/2013
25537 7590 03/30/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arjun Baskaran
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
20130253 4491
EXAMINER
EVERETT, CHRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2121
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARJUN BASKARAN and RAJA SUNDARAM GANESAN
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-22. App. Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. and its subsidiary companies. App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.")
mailed August 26, 2016, the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed January 17,
2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed March 20, 2017, and the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed May 8, 2017.
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to a home- or building-automation
system. Spec. i-f 1. Appellants' automation system controls various
devices, such as cameras, door sensors, window sensors, motion
detectors, heating, among other things. Id. The system has a "user
activity mode" that operates the system according to an identified
usage pattern. Id. i-f 34. For example, a control device uses the usage
pattern to tum off or on various lights or tum on the television at a
time of a user's favorite program. Id. i-f 50.
The user, however, may opt in or out of pattern-of-use
identification. Id. i-f 35. The user may also omit particular
controllable elements or particular time periods---e.g., daytime,
certain hours or days-from analysis. Id. The system stores user
preferences related to these usage patterns and the user-activity mode.
Id. i-fi-f 35-36.
Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis on the
limitation at issue:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a request to change a state of one or multiple
elements of an automation system;
changing the state of the one or multiple elements based
on the request;
storing usage activity data of the one or multiple elements
based on the changing;
storing a user preference that indicates to omit usage
activity data, which corresponds to a user-specified time period
of operation of the one or multiple elements, from analyzing;
analyzing the stored usage activity data using a pattern
recognition metric and based on the user preference;
2
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
determining whether a usage pattern exists based on the
analyzing;
creating a user activity mode in response to determining
that the usage pattern exists; and
operating the automation system in accordance with the
user activity mode based on the creating.
THE EVIDENCE
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence:
Lim
Matsuoka et al.
US 2007/0179987 Al
US 8,630,741 Bl
THE REJECTION
Aug.2,2007
Jan. 14,2014
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Matsuoka and Lim. Final Act. 6-26.
CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue claims 1-22 together. See App. Br. 18-19
(explaining that the reasons for reversing the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-7 are "equally true, mutatis mutandis" for claims 8-22); see also
Reply Br. 6. We, therefore, select claim 1 as representative of claims 1-22.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner finds that Matsuoka teaches every limitation recited in
representative claim 1 except for ( 1) storing usage activity data of the one or
multiple elements and (2) analyzing the stored usage activity data using a
pattern recognition metric. Final Act. 8. In concluding that claim 1 would
have been obvious, the Examiner cites Lim as teaching these features.
Id. at 8-9. Of relevance to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner finds that a
user-entered away mode for Matsuoka's home automation system
corresponds to the recited user preference. Id. at 6-7.
3
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
First, Appellants argue that Matsuoka's user-entered away mode is not
a user preference. App. Br. 11-14; Reply Br. 1-3. According to Appellants,
Matsuoka's away-mode state is related to the remote system, which is not
user managed. App. Br. 13-14. In Appellants' view, Matsuoka's away
mode is an "immediate-control directive"-i.e., an input that the user
expects to be carried out immediately. Reply Br. 2.
Second, Appellants argue that Matsuoka still analyzes data in the
away-mode state, but the recited user preference is an indication to omit
usage activity data from analysis. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3-5.
According to Appellants, Matsuoka's away mode only adjusts the auto-
arrival function to make it less sensitive. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants further contend that Lim does not cure Matsuoka because Lim's
policy specifies what information to analyze, not omit. Reply Br. 4--5.
Third, Appellants contend that Matsuoka lacks a user preference that
corresponds to a user-specified time period. App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 5---6.
In Appellants' view, Matsuoka's away mode is not a user-specified time
period because the start time and end time are unknown. App. Br. 16-17.
Furthermore, Appellants argue that Matsuoka does not store a time period-
e. g., a start time and an end time. Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, the
Examiner's interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification.
App. Br. 17.
ISSUES
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim
1 by finding that Matsuoka would have taught or suggested
I. storing the recited user preference;
4
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
II. a user preference that indicates to omit usage activity data from
analyzing; and
III. a user preference that corresponds to a user-specified time
period of operation?
ANALYSIS
I
The first disputed limitation of claim 1 calls for, in part, "storing a
user preference." The Specification explains that the user may opt in or out
of pattern-of-use identification, or omit particular controllable elements or
particular time periods from analysis. Spec. i-f 35, cited in App. Br. 4. The
user preference includes these settings. Spec. i-fi-135-36. The user selects the
user preference using the control device's user interface. Id. i-f 88. The
behavioral analytics engine then identifies a usage pattern based on the user-
preference settings. Id. i-fi-1 46, 66, cited in App. Br. 4.
Consistent with these examples, a broad, but reasonable, interpretation
of the term "user preference" encompasses user-selectable settings that
reflect how the user prefers the system to operate. Furthermore, Appellants
argue that the "user" aspect should be interpreted as "a person that
uses/operates the automation in, for example, the user's residence or place of
business." App. Br. 13. We agree.
Given this understanding of the claim, however, we see no error in the
Examiner's finding that Matsuoka's user-entered away mode is a user
preference. See Final Act. 6-7.
In particular, Matsuoka teaches an intelligent thermostat.
Matsuoka 46:37--44. Matsuoka's user operates the thermostat in the user's
residence. See generally id. at 47:8-14. Notably, Matsuoka's user chooses
5
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
to enter the Away-Manual mode. Id. at 49: 15. For example, the user can
select the away mode from a thermostat dial's menu. See id. at 47:8-14; see
also id., Fig. 4 (showing a user interface). Matsuoka stores this preference
in at least the intelligent controller's memory 504--507. Id. at 7:64--8:4;
Fig. 5, cited in Ans. 25. Therefore, like the recited ''user preference" (see,
e.g., Spec. i-fi-135-36), Matsuoka's away mode is selectable by a person who
uses and operates the automation system at home. See Matsuoka 47:8-14,
Fig. 4.
Just as the recited user preference affects how the system operates
(Spec. i-fi-1 46, 66), Matsuoka's preferences adjust the automation's
occupancy detection. Matsuoka 38: 1-33, 49: 1-12. To be sure, Matsuoka's
away mode configures an algorithm. See, e.g., id. But this configuration is
the user's preferred operating mode. Id. at 49: 15-18. In other words, the
user prefers the system to consider the residence unoccupied at a certain
time. See id. Furthermore, Matsuoka characterizes this manual activity as
an "adjustment" to improve behavior. Id. at 49: 13-14. In this way,
Matsuoka's system in manual away mode (id. at 49: 13-26) is the same as
Appellants' behavioral analytics engine, which also operates based on the
user preference (Spec. i-fi-1 46, 66).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner's interpretation is
inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of "user preference."
App. Br. 12-14. Rather, Matsuoka's manual away mode, like the recited
"user preference," is a user-selectable setting that reflects a preferred
operation mode in the user's residence. See Ans. 25.
6
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
II
Claim 1 further recites that the stored user preference "indicates to
omit usage activity data ... from analyzing" and "analyzing the stored usage
activity data using a pattern recognition metric and based on the user
preference."
Although Matsuoka still analyzes data in the away-mode state, we
disagree with Appellants that the claim requires excluding the data from any
analysis. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3-5. Rather, the claim only
requires omission from the analyzing step, which uses pattern recognition
and is based on the user preference. Ans. 28. Notably, the claim uses the
term "comprising," which is a term of art that does not exclude additional,
unrecited features from the claim. Thus, the claim does not exclude
additional, unrecited analysis, other than the recited pattern-recognition-
based analysis.
Moreover, although the recited analyzing step is "based on the user
preference," the claim does not require omitting the data from analysis when
indicated by the user preference. See Ans. 29. Instead, the user preference
indicates omission, and the analyzing is "based on" this preference. Thus,
the claim does not preclude analyzing in some instances when the user
prefers otherwise, as long as the analyzing is based, at least in part, on the
preference. Spec. i-f 99 (defining "based on" as "based, at least in part, on").
For example, according to the Specification, the user preference can hold
information other than indications to omit data, and this other information
could also be the basis for the analysis. See id. i-fi-135-36 (discussing user
preference for alerts or omitting particular elements 150).
7
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
In the Examiner's proposed combination with Lim (see Final Act. 6-
9), Matsuoka's away-mode user preference instructs the system to decrease
the auto-arrival function's sensitivity. Matsuoka 49: 13-23. For example,
Matsuoka's auto-arrival function uses N consecutive buckets of sensor
activity over the previous 30 minutes. Id. at 49:23-27. The system is
returned to the "Home state" if sensor activity is in N consecutive buckets.
Id. at 46:58---60. The system adjusts N's value to make the auto-arrival
function more or less sensitive. Id. at 46:59---62. In the Away-Manual state,
the system increases N by one. Id. at 49:23-26. If the user manually enters
away mode, the system assumes the sensor-detected activity is erroneous.
Id. at 49: 13-23. Because erroneous data would not normally be further
analyzed, Matsuoka's user preference indicates to omit the sensor-detected
activity from analysis, as the Examiner finds. See Final Act. 7.
The Examiner further finds that Lim teaches analyzing some stored
usage activity based on the user's preferences. Id. at 8. For example, Lim
uses a policy that specifies what information is included in an activity log.
Lim i-f 64 7. Appellants argue Lim does not cure Matsuoka because Lim' s
policy specifies what information to analyze, not omit. Reply Br. 4--5. We
disagree.
By specifying what is included, Lim necessarily defines what is
omitted. See Lim i-f 64 7. Lim then uses pattern matching to analyze the
collected data. Id. i-f 641. Based on these teachings, the Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to indicate omitting Matsuoka's usage
activity data from Lim's pattern-recognition-based analysis. Final. Act. 8-9;
Ans. 28. In this way, the Examiner proposes combining prior art elements
8
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
according to known methods to yield predictable results, which is obvious.
See KSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that Matsuoka teaches
that the stored user preference "indicates to omit usage activity data" from
the recited analyzing. Final Act. 6-9.
III
Claim 1 further recites, in part, the user preference "corresponds to a
user-specified time period of operation of the one or multiple elements."
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments that (1) Matsuoka's
user does not know the starting and ending time (App. Br. 16-17) and (2)
Matsuoka does not store a time period---e.g., a start and end time
(Reply Br. 5).
As the Examiner explains (Ans. 30), Matsuoka does maintain a user-
specified time period with a start and end time as shown in Figure 46C, for
example. See Matsuoka 47:6-8, 47:14--20, 49:15-18. Matsuoka's Figure
46C is reproduced below.
W~\ ~p ~-A SA
ACI~VD~'( -~\~Wnesc"" · TN!ri.-;j$•
tt'J>~f!;f;Q ............ ••. • ..
f,li,~J t ••••••••••••••••••••••••••• '.>····························''
4fa}6
FIG,46C
Matsuoka's Figure 46C shows a state corresponding to a time period and
some activity. Id. at 47:6-8. In particular, the Away-Normal state starts at
9:30 a.m. and ends at 5:00 p.m. See id. Fig. 46C. Matsuoka's user specifies
9
Appeal2017-008127
Application 13/873,552
the time when the user manually enters an away mode at a particular instant.
Id. at 49:15-18. The user then ends the manual away mode by setting a
manual arrival. Id. at 47: 14--20. In this way, the user knowingly specifies
the time period spent in the away mode by manually starting and ending the
mode. Ans. 30.
Appellants further argue that, even if Matsuoka teaches the recited
time period, activity data is analyzed during the period. Reply Br. 5. We,
however, find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in the
previous section.
On this record, we agree with the Examiner that Matsuoka teaches the
user preference "corresponds to a user-specified time period of operation of
the one or multiple elements." Final Act. 6-7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative
claim 1 as well as claims 2-22, which are not argued separately with
particularity (App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 6).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10