13666133 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

Ex Parte Nahumi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 4, 2018

13666133 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 13/666, 133 69054 7590 RECHES PA TENTS 211 North Union St. Suite 100 FILING DATE 11/01/2012 09/06/2018 Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aaron N ahumi 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. 8252-US 2737 EXAMINER MRABI, HASSAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/06/2018 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): OREN@I-P.CO.IL RECHES0@012.NET.IL MAIL@I-P.CO.IL PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AARON NAHUM!, MICHAL A VNI, and ELADMAGAL Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 Technology Center 2100 Before MARC S. HOFF, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appellants' invention is a non-transitory computer readable medium for displaying augmented personalized information to a user. The medium stores instructions for collecting information from a plurality of information sources, and detecting, out of the collected information, relevant information based upon a profile of a user, a relevant point of time and a relevant location. The relevant information is processed to provide augmented Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 personalized information that is compatible to an augmented personalized dynamic space of the user. Said information is transmitted to a device of the user, causing the device to display to the user the specific augmented personalized information within the augmented personalized dynamic space of the user. See Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium for displaying augmented personalized information to a user, the non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions for: collecting collected information from a plurality of information sources out of social networks, sensors, location sources, real time sources, user provided information; detecting, out of the collected information, relevant information that is relevant to a user based upon user characteristics, a relevant point of time and a relevant location; processing the relevant information through a structuring content process to provide specific augmented personalized information that is compatible to an augmented personalized dynamic space of the user; and transmitting to a device of the user the specific augmented personalized information, the specific augmented personalized information causes to the device of the user to display to the user the specific augmented personalized information within the augmented personalized dynamic space of the user. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims on appeal: Patton et al. US 2012/0317198 Al (hereinafter "Patton") Chau et al. US 9,201,952 Bl (hereinafter "Chau") Dec. 13, 2012 Dec. 1, 2015 Claims 1-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. 2 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Apr. 4, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 19, 2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 26, 2017) for their respective details. ISSUES 1. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest collecting information from real time sources? 2. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest that at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location is virtual? 3. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest a public profile accessible only to other users that have similar public profiles? 4. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest randomly selecting at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location? 5. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest that the relevant point in time is a future point in time? 6. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest detecting an occurrence of an event by monitoring real time local feeds, and based upon a frequency of the real time local feeds? 7. Does the combination of Patton and Chau disclose or fairly suggest triggering randomly a retrieval of a user profile? 3 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 ANALYSIS CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17-22, AND 24--26 Independent claims 1, 20, and 21 recite displaying augmented personalized information, including collecting information from real time sources. Appellants observe that the Examiner admits that Patton does not disclose the claimed "collecting collected information from real-time sources," and argue that Chau also fails to disclose this limitation. App. Br. 18. Appellants further argue that a skilled artisan "will not be motivated to discuss the social network centric system and method of Patton to the social network indifferent system and method of Chau." Id. We are not persuaded that Chau fails to disclose collecting information from real time sources. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Chau discloses an "activity assistant" that "displays activities that have been added, done, and/or recently updated by friends of the user (or members of the user's social graph and/or social network)." Chau col. 11 :62-65. Activity assistant user interface 300 includes context panel 308, which "provides an interactive mechanism for users to provide context signal data that describes a 'user context' (e.g. to provide signals indicative of the user's ... associations with other users ... )." Chau col. 12: 17-21. "[I]nput mechanism 31 OC on the right of context panel 308 allows a user to signal a time or timeframe (e.g., 'now', 'tomorrow', 'tonight')." Chau col. 12:28- 30. Figure 3A of Chau is reproduced below. 4 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 !;:.::! j ~i<'e~ft~h =~,:::; 1::::::, 'Â·""Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·'" '"""""""""'"'~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1 Â·.. Actht) too ~rf,; l ~~=rt z.;.~~t::=,J::e:'i" ~::) t~~:,,.wk-: ~::t, :i~~~:-.i:;,."3 li~~ ii j Llm~h with cla-d Â·-----.... E ... >Â·.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-............................................... , ................................ , .. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .... W~1.:i.~n, O~~t~ ;:.\-:-:~:){!$ W,1<1:t;foCl~t<~'-' M<>,.>.><â€¢w, i!:tt'>>'!:\>' t)*:r,rf:is ~::.:h~Â·-0-ut t~~ t-fj~'f~~ ~~J'IJ$) t),1~:nf't!~ ~-------'"'"""'""""""""""""""""""""""""""'""Â·Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·' -Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·' -Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â·-Â· FlG. 3A Figure 3A of Chau is a block diagram illustrating features of a user interface. Activity list 352, displayed beneath context panel 308 and input mechanism 31 OC, includes activities that a user has added to their account. The activity list also includes indications that one or more other users "were inspired by" the activity, or "encouraged it." Chau Fig. 3A. Because Chau's context panel 308 includes such a temporal component, we do not agree with Appellants that Chau fails to disclose collecting information from "real time sources." Because Chau's activity assistant displays activities added, done, or updated by friends of the user, we disagree with Appellants' characterization of Chau as "social network indifferent." Thus, we also disagree with Appellants that the skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine Patton with Chau as a result of such alleged indifference. 5 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting independent claims 1, 20, and 21 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. We sustain the Examiner'sÂ§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 20, and 21, as well as dependent claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17-19, 22, and 24--26 not separately argued. CLAIM3 Claim 3 requires that "at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location is virtual and is retrieved from the augmented personalized dynamic space of the user." The Examiner cites to the Abstract and paragraphs 3 and 9-20 of Patton in support of the finding that Patton discloses that at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location is virtual. Ans. 18. Appellants argue that the cited paragraphs do not teach or suggest that the location is virtual. App. Br. 20-23. We have reviewed the sections of Patton cited by the Examiner, and we do not agree with the Examiner's finding. We find that Patton contains no disclosure of either a virtual relevant point of time or a virtual relevant location. We observe that the Examiner mentions Chau in passing, but makes no finding that Chau supplies the missing teaching. Consequently, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 3 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. We do not sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection. CLAIMS Claim 5, dependent from claim 1, recites a public user profile that "is accessible only to other users that have similar public profiles to the public profile of the user." 6 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 The Examiner finds that Patton discloses this limitation. The Examiner cites the Abstract and paragraphs 13 and 16 of Patton in support of this finding. We have reviewed the cited sections of Patton, and we find no disclosure of a public profile that is accessible only to other users that have similar public profiles. Accord App. Br. 13-14 (arguing these paragraph merely disclose that public information is retrieved and associated with a user). As a result, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. We do not sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection. CLAIMS 9 AND 23 Claim 9, dependent from claim 1, further recites "instructions for randomly selecting at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location." Claim 23, dependent from claim 1, further recites "instructions for triggering randomly, a retrieval of a user profile, and a match of the user profile against a geolocation profile to provide a customized relevant geolocation data." The Examiner finds that Patton discloses randomly selecting at least one of relevant point of time and relevant location, citing paragraphs 21-24, 28-29, 35, 38, 40, 45, 47, 49, 59, 61-62, and 64---65. Ans. 5. Citing the same paragraphs, the Examiner further finds that Patton discloses triggering randomly a retrieval of a user profile and a match of said user profile, as claimed. Ans. 8. We have reviewed the cited sections of Patton, and we find that Patton contains no disclosure of (a) randomly selecting at least one of relevant point 7 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 of time and relevant location or (b) random triggering of retrieval of a user profile and match of that user profile against a geolocation profile. Accord App. Br. 14--15 (arguing that Patton generates a user profile from settings but does not teach randomly selecting or triggering as recited). As a result, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 23 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. We do not sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection. CLAIM 11 Independent claim 1 requires detecting, out of the collected information, a relevant point of time. Claim 11, dependent from claim 1, requires that the relevant point in time is a future point of time. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds that Patton discloses detecting a relevant point of time. Final Act. 10. With respect to the dependent claim 11 limitation, the Examiner again cites Patton (paragraph 15) as disclosing detecting a future point of time. We have reviewed the cited portion of Patton, and we do not agree with the Examiner that Patton discloses detecting, out of the collected information, a future point of time as the relevant point of time. Accord App. Br. 18-19 (arguing Patton lacks the future point in time). Consequently, we find that the combination of Patton and Chau fails to disclose all the limitations of claim 11. We do not sustain the Examiner's Â§ 103(a) rejection of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. CLAIM 16 Claim 16, dependent from independent claim 1, recites "monitoring real time local feeds" and "detecting the occurrence of the event based upon a frequency of the real time local feeds." 8 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 The Examiner finds that Patton discloses monitoring real time local feeds, citing to paragraphs 12, 15-21, 33, 42, 50, and 59 of Patton. Ans. 11. Appellants argue Patton merely refers to social network feeds but lacks the recited monitoring and detecting. App. Br. 16-17. We have reviewed the cited sections of Patton, and we find that Patton does not disclose such monitoring, nor detecting the occurrence of an event based upon a frequency of the real time local feeds. Consequently, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 16 as being unpatentable over Patton and Chau. We do not sustain theÂ§ 103(a) rejection. CONCLUSIONS 1. The combination of Patton and Chau discloses collecting information from real time sources. 2. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest that at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location is virtual. 3. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest a public profile accessible only to other users that have similar public profiles. 4. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest randomly selecting at least one of the relevant point of time and the relevant location. 5. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest that the relevant point in time is a future point in time. 9 Appeal2018-003355 Application No. 13/666,133 6. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest detecting an occurrence of an event by monitoring real time local feeds, and based upon a frequency of the real time local feeds. 7. The combination of Patton and Chau does not disclose or fairly suggest triggering randomly a retrieval of a user profile. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12-15, 17- 22, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is affirmed. The Examiner's decision to reject claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 16, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) is reversed. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 10