Ex Parte Beaurepaire

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2017

13412207 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 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.
13/412,207 03/05/2012 Jerome Beaurepaire P6022US00 1092
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
SMITH, JELANI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/28/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEROME BEAUREPAIRE
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
Technology Center 3600
Before LINDA E. HORNER, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
BRENT M. DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judges.
DOUGAL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and designate a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus related to
processing conveyance of line-of-sight centered guidance information based
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
on one or more behavior patterns exhibited by a user. Independent claims 1
and 11, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
I. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one
signal based, at least in part, on the following:
a processing via a processor of sensor information
associated with a device, a user of the device, or a combination
thereof to determine line-of-sight information to at least one
navigation element and one or more user behavior patterns,
wherein the one or more behavior patterns include, at least in
part, one or more hesitation points;
at least one determination via the processor of a timing, a
frequency, or a combination thereof of at least one presentation
of guidance information based, at least in part, on the line-of
sight information; and
an initiation of the at least one presentation of the guidance
information based, at least in part, on the one or more hesitation
points,
wherein the hesitation points are determined based on a
number of start/stop occurrences within a period of time to
indicate the user is lost.
II. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code for
one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer
program code configured to, with the at least one processor,
cause the apparatus to perform at least the following,
process and/or facilitate a processing of sensor
information associated with a device, a user of the device,
or a combination thereof to determine line-of-sight
information to at least one navigation element and one or
more user behavior patterns, wherein the one or more
behavior patterns include, at least in part, one or more
hesitation points;
determine a timing, a frequency, or a combination
thereof of at least one presentation of guidance
2
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
information based, at least in part, on the line-of-sight
information; and
cause an initiation of the at least one presentation of
the guidance information based, at least in part, on the one
or more hesitation points,
wherein the hesitation points are determined based
on a number of start/stop occurrences within a period of
time to indicate the user is lost.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Han US 2005/0177305 A1 Aug. 11,2005
Iwami US 2007/0021910 A1 Jan. 25, 2007
Kennewick US 2012/0109753 A1 May 3, 2012
Lapidot US 2012/0179369 A1 July 12, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 6, 8—13, 16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Lapidot and Iwami.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lapidot, Iwami, and Han.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lapidot, Iwami, and Kennewick.
OPINION
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION: 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph requires that “[t]he specification
shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and
distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his
3
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
invention.” This requires, among other things, that the scope of the claims
be clear.
Claim 1 is a method claim that affirmatively recites the step of
“facilitating a processing of and/or processing (1) data and/or (2)
information and/or (3) at least one signal.” The claim further recites that
“the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal” be “based,
at least in part,” on certain additional conditions including, inter alia:
1) “a processing via a processor,”
2) “at least one determination,” and
3) “an initiation.”
It is unclear whether the scope of claim 1 includes, for example,
performance of the steps recited in the additional conditions or the additional
conditions instead recite characteristics of the data, information, or signal,
with the related processing, determination, and initiation steps occurring
outside of the scope of the claim. This uncertainty is due to the way claim 1
is drafted. For example, claim 1 uses terms such as “a processing” and “an
initiation,” rather than the more typical method claim language of
“processing” and “initiating” without the article “a” or “an.”
If the additional conditions do not need to be performed, the claim
would essentially be claiming “facilitating a processing of and/or
processing,” where, though what is being processed is a particular item, it
may be that a general purpose computer would be capable of “facilitating a
processing of and/or processing” it. However, if the additional conditions
are further method steps that need to be performed, then the claim is much
narrower. The relationship between “the (1) data and/or (2) information
4
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
and/or (3) at least one signal” and the additional conditions is written
broadly so as allow for the two interpretations.
The phrases “facilitating a processing” in claim 1 and “facilitate a
processing” in claim 11 suffer from similar issues in clarity. It is unclear
whether the processing is required, or if the claims merely require some step
or action leading to processing.
It is also unclear what is required to “facilitate” the processing. Do
the claims require “helping bring about” the processing, or is more active
participation required, such as assisting with obtaining the underlying
information/data/signal that is to be processed? On review, the Specification
does not clarity what is intended. The similar phrase “facilitating
processing” is used once in the Specification, and the terms “facilitate” and
“facilitating” are used when describing aspects that could potentially be
interpreted as being related to processing. See e.g., Spec. ]Hf 60, 76.
For example, the Specification teaches:
In step 321 of process 320 (FIG. 3D), the platform 111
determines the sensor information from one or more sensors
associated with the device and/or one or more other devices. By
way of example, the guidance platform 111 may process sensor
information as detected for different UE 101 configured for
operation with the platform 111. In this way, additional data is
made available to the guidance platform 111 for facilitating
processing of line-of-sight information. Still further, the other
device may include one or more user-mounted sensors, i.e., those
mounted on a pair of glasses, a helmet, hat or head mounted
device.
Spec. 176 (emphasis added). This paragraph could be read to show that the
step of “facilitating a processing” is an act of providing additional
information to aid in processing of other information (i.e. line-of-sight
information). But, it is not clear whether providing the additional
5
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
information is required, or whether simply “helping bring about” the
processing in some way is all that is meant by “facilitating.”
As claims 1 and 11 are “amenable to two or more plausible claim
constructions,” we determine that the claims are indefinite. Ex Parte
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (precedential) (“if a claim is
amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is
justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and
bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable ... as
indefinite”). Because we are unable to determine the scope of claims 1 and
11, we enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1 and 11 and their
dependents, claims 2—6, 8—10, 12—16, and 18—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)1
Appellant argues that the rejection of independent claim 1 is improper
because Iwami does not teach or suggest “one or more hesitation points”
which are “determined based on a number of start/stop occurrences within a
period of time to indicate the user is lost” as required by the claim. Appeal
Br. 1.
The Examiner explains that:
Iwami discloses that a travel burden point is based on hesitation
by the driver. Hesitation is both interpreted and known to be
defined as a pause or temporary stop. Therefore, both the
Applicant and Iwami are using hesitation in the same context
which is indicating a temporary stop or pause by the driver.
1 Even though the scope of the claims is unclear, we use our discretion to
decide these issues to help further prosecution.
6
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
Final Act. 3.
Though Iwami and Appellant both refer to hesitation, we agree with
Appellant that the Examiner has not identified how Iwami teaches “one or
more hesitation points” which are “determined based on a number of
start/stop occurrences within a period of time to indicate the user is lost” as
required by the claim.
Iwami discloses that “a driver characteristic value is input by the user
. . . when the navigation apparatus is started up” and that the driver
characteristic value represents “a travel burden point” about which “the user
is anxious.” Iwami 140; see also Appeal Br. 12—15 and Reply Br. 2—3. The
Examiner acknowledges that “Iwami clearly discloses that the driver
characteristic value is determined based on parameters setup by the user.”
Final Act. 2. Thus, the “reference hesitation value indicating a degree of a
driver’s hesitation to go through a travel burden point” mentioned in
Iwami’s Abstract and referred to by the Examiner (Ans. 15) is not based on
“start/stop occurrences,” but rather “parameters setup by the user” (Final
Act. 2) “when the navigation apparatus is started up” (Iwami 140).
As the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Iwami where one
or more hesitation points are “determined based on a number of start/stop
occurrences” we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. As claim 11
includes limitations comparable to those of claim 1, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 11 for similar reasons. The rejections of the dependent
claims rely on the same faulty findings and are therefore not sustained.
7
Appeal 2016-000468
Application 13/412,207
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20 are
reversed.
As a new ground of rejection, claims 1—6, 8—16, and 18—20 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the examiner.
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record.
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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)(l)(iv).
REVERSED with a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION ENTERED
under 37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
8