Ex Parte Takemoto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14284580 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/284,580 05/22/2014
52123 7590 03/28/2018
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yuichiro TAKEMOTO
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.
P45875 6640
EXAMINER
DICKERSON, TIPHANY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YUICHIRO TAKEMOTO, KUNIO HIRAKA WA, YOSHINOBU
UNO, and YUICHI NAKAHATA
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 2, 4--13, and 16-18 which are all the claims pending in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a system and method
for customer category analysis of customers visiting a commercial
establishment (Spec., page 1 lines 5-7). Claim 18, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
18. An analysis method comprising:
receiving, via a receiver, images of persons captured by a
camera pointed in a predetermined direction;
detecting, via a detector, a front face of each of the persons in
the received images, and further detecting, via the detector, a moving
direction of each of the detected front face;
storing, in a storage medium, information of the predetermined
direction including information of a predetermined movement path
corresponding to the predetermined direction and towards the camera;
obtaining, via a filter, a movement path for each of the detected
front faces;
selecting, via the filter, from among the persons whose front
face has been detected, one or more persons whose face moves in a
path matching the predetermined movement path; and
categorizing, in a categorizer, the persons whose front face has
been detected, wherein persons other than the selected persons are
excluded from a target of the categorizing.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review 1:
Claims 2, 4--13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1 The rejections under 35 USC§ 103 are considered withdrawn in light of the
statement at page 2 of the Advisory Action mailed Feb. 23, 2017, at page 2.
2
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence. 2
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 18 is improper
because the claim is not directed to an abstract idea (App. Br. 32, Reply Br.
13-15). The Appellants also argue that the claim recites additional
limitations amounting to "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea
such that they are sufficient to transform the patent-ineligible abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention (App. Br. 32-38, Reply Br. 15-17).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Rej. 6-8, Ans. 2-5).
We agree with the Examiner. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is
patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however,
has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: "[l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. See, e.g.,
Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 18 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-79 (2012)).
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is
"directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then consider the
elements of the claim both individually and as "an ordered combination" to
determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the
claim" into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a
search for an "inventive concept," i.e., an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more"
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that "the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the concept of
collecting and classifying information of images, and analyzing and
displaying certain results from the analysis. The Examiner determined that
the claims are similar to claims involving collecting and processing data that
the Federal Circuit has held to be abstract (Ans. 2-3), and we agree. Courts
have found claims directed to collecting, recognizing, analyzing, and storing
data to be directed to an abstract idea, even when computers and other
hardware is required for implementation. Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 776 F.3d
1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830F.3d1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) where collecting information, analyzing it,
and displaying results from certain results of the collection and analysis was
held to be an abstract idea. See also In re TL! Comm. LLC Patent Litig., 823
F .3 d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (in which "classifying and storing digital
images in an organized manner" was held to be an abstract concept
4
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea over the using generic computer components. We conclude
that it does not. The Specification at page 13 for instance describes the use
conventional computer components and networks used in a conventional
manner for their known purposes.
Considering each of the claim elements in tum, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
conventional both individually and as an ordered combination. Each step of
the claimed method does no more than require a generic computer to
perform a generic computer function. Unlike Appellants' cited examples of
claims held to be patent eligible by the Federal Circuit Appellants (see, e.g.,
App. Br. 31-32), here, claim 18 is not directed to an improvement in
technology, nor does it recite an ordered combination of elements that
results in an innovative concept. At best, claim 18 requires applying the
abstract idea of receiving, storing, and processing data to a particular
technological environment, which is not enough for patent eligibility.
For these above reasons, the rejection of claim 18 is sustained.
Claims 16 and 17 are directed to similar subject matter, but in the
form of device and system claims, respectively. The Appellants have
provided similar arguments for these claims as provided with respect to
claim 18.. Here, as in Alice, "the system claims are no different in substance
from the method claims. The method claims recite the abstract idea
implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of
5
Appeal2018-000322
Application 14/284,580
generic computer components configured to implement the same idea."
Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2351. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. Stating an abstract idea 'while adding the words 'apply it' is not
enough for patent eligibility." Id. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71-
73). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 16 and 17,
for the same reasons described above with respect to claim 18. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4--13, which depend from claim 16 and
are not argued separately.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 2, 4--13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4--13, and 16-18 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
6