Ex Parte Gupta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2017

13594963 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 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.
13/594,963 08/27/2012 Ajay K. Gupta IN920110078US2 7641
29154 7590
FREDERICK W. GIBB, III
GIBB & RILEY, LLC
844 West Street
SUITE 200
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21401
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2017 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):
support @ gibbiplaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AJAY K. GUPTA, ROHIT M. LOTIKAR and ANGSHU RAI
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,9631
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction 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.
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a framework that uses textual
content to derive interpersonal influence including a nature, an extent and a
direction of influence from interpersonal interactions of participants within a
communication channel. See Paragraph 1 of Appellants’ Specification.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below.
A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, into a computerized device, an interaction text
response, said interaction text response being to a
communication by a participant of a pair of participants in an
interaction channel;
determining a type of influence relation for said
interaction text response, based on relational descriptors, using
said computerized device;
determining an influence score value for said interaction
text response, using said computerized device;
determining a pair-wise indication of a direction of
influence between said pair of participants in said interaction
channel, based on said type of influence relation for said
interaction text response, using said computerized device; and
outputting, for said pair of participants in said interaction
channel, interpersonal relationship influence information for said
interaction text response comprising said type of influence
relation, said influence score value, and said pair-wise indication
of direction of influence, using said computerized device.
2
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has provisionally rejected claims 1 through 11 under
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 26 through 32
of co-pending Application No. 13/177,998.2 Final Act. 5—6.3
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 15, and 17 through 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shah (US 2012/029786 Al;
Aug. 16, 2012) and Work (US 2006/ 0042483 Al; Mar. 2, 2006). Final Act.
7-17.
The Examiner has rejected claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shah, Work, and Pottenger (US 2009/ 0177757 Al;
July 9, 2009). Final Act. 17—18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and the
Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to
Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20.
Appellants argue the Shah reference is not prior art. Appellants filed a
Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.131 alleging Appellants conceived of the
invention before the effective filing date of Shah. App. Br. 9—11. The
Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments on
2 We decline to reach the provisional rejection as the issues are not ripe for
decision. See Ex parte Moncla, 95 USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated December 16,
2015; the corrected Claim Appendix submitted on April 19, 2016, Reply
Brief dated November 1, 2016; Final Office Action mailed August 27, 2015;
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 2, 2016.
3
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
pages 2 to 7 of the Answer. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Appellants
have not presented sufficient evidence to establish diligence from the time of
conception to filing of the application (constructive reduction to practice).
Answer 5—6. The Examiner notes that work on filing the application began
after the critical date. Answer 6. Specifically, Examiner states:
Applicant appears to state that a searcher was not engaged for
patentability search until after a month past the filing date of the
Shah reference when assumedly the invention was conceived
prior to the effective filing date of the reference. 12 days later,
search results were received. Approximately 30 days later a
patent attorney was instructed to prepare the application.
Approximately 71 days later patent application was filed.
Answer 5. We concur with the Examiner. We note Appellants, in pages 5
through 7 of the Reply Brief, attempt to provide an accounting for this time.
These statements constitute attorney argument and, as such, are not
evidence. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (It is well
settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value.)
Further, we note that the accounting for time is not supported by
corroborating evidence as required by 37 C.F.R. § 1.131(b). Accordingly,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
that Shah is prior art.
Independent claim 1
Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown the limitation directed
to the influence score value as “Shah discloses a net influence for an entire
communication stream. Shah is not limited to ‘said interaction text
response ’ (emphasis added) as required by independent Claim 1.” App.
Br. 11. Further, Appellants argue that Shah does not teach the claimed
4
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
determining a pair wise indication of a direction of influence. Appellants
state “[wjhile Shah may disclose that a comment could be positive or
negative, Shah does not disclose a direction of influence for who influences
whom.” App. Br. 12.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments on pages 7 through
9 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that the combination of Shah and
Work teaches the claimed determining an influence score value based upon
the interaction text response. Answer 7 (citing Shah para. 26 and Work
para. 60). Further, the Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments,
directed to the direction of influence, finding that Shah’s disclosure, of
determining the primary promoters that drove a conversation, and
identification of ravers and ranters, teaches this limitation. Answer 8 (citing
Shah paras. 26 and 27).
We have reviewed the teachings of the reference cited by the
Examiner. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our
own. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ further argument:
Shah does not disclose the discrete fidelity required by the
claimed invention by using each text response as opposed to
overall influence from the conversation. While Appellant
recognizes that Work is cited to teach an “influence score value”,
Work does not disclose the discrete fidelity of determining a
score for each text response, either.
Reply Br. 8. Similarly we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that
“Shah does not identify a discrete pair or participants and the individual
directional influence or the pair.” We note that Shah is concerned with the
individual’s response, i.e., a raver (positive response) or a ranter (negative
response) is based upon an individual response. See, e.g., Shah paras. 26
5
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
and 36. Thus, we do not consider the teaching of analysis to be only of the
net influence. Further, the arguments directed to the pair-wise direction of
influence, are premised on the number of participants in the conversation,
and we consider Shah’s teaching to be applicable to conversations with as
few as two people (see e.g., para. 33). Thus, Appellants have not persuaded
us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 2
through 7, which are grouped with claim 1.
Independent claim 8
Appellants argue the Examiner has not shown the limitation directed
to annotating the interaction text because “[wjhile Shah discloses a ‘topic
analysis and categorization module 532’ (para. 40), it is impossible to
determine what that feature actually does because it is only mentioned that
one time and is never described.” App. Br. 12. Further, Appellants argue,
applying reasoning similar to that discussed with respect to claim 1, the
Examiner has not shown Shaw teaches the limitations directed to
determining an influence score, and determining a pair wise indication of
direction of influence.
In response, the Examiner finds that Shah teaches annotating the
interaction text via indexing of the conversations citing. Answer 8 (citing
Shah Figure 5 and paras. 37, 38 and 40).
We concur with the Examiner. Appellants’ arguments focus on
features of Shah not relied upon by the Examiner to teach this limitation. As
Appellants’ additional arguments present the same issues as discussed with
respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and
claims 9 through 12, which are grouped with claim 8.
6
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
Independent claim 13
With respect to independent claim 13, Appellants present several of
the same arguments presented with respect to claim 1 and 8. App. Br. 13—
14. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error by these arguments.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 and claims 14,
15, and 17 through 20, which are grouped with claim 13.
With respect to claim 16, Appellants argue that the additional teaching
of Pottenger does not cure the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 13, from
which claim 16 depends. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of a
deficiency in the rejection of claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16 for the same reasons as discussed with
respect to claim 13.
DECISION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under
35U.S.C. § 103(a).
Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner
is encouraged to reconsider the application of a rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner’s statement on page 3 of the Final Office
action “The introduction of the computerized device alleviates the previous
the previous 35 USC§ 101 rejection” is at odds with current precedent.
“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user
interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter.” FairWarning IP, LLC, v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC, v. Hotds.com,
7
Appeal 2017-001303
Application 13/594,963
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). See also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014).
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