Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 19, 2021

2019004630 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2021)

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.
15/222,024 07/28/2016 Thomas Jenkins GGL-2250-CON 6620
100462 7590 03/19/2021
Dority & Manning P.A. and Google LLC
Post Office Box 1449
Greenville, SC 29602
EXAMINER
AHMED, SABA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2154
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2021 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):
usdocketing@dority-manning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________
Ex parte THOMAS JENKINS
____________________

Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–5, 7, 9–13, 15, and 17–25.2,3 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Final Office Action mailed
September 20, 2018 (“Final Act.”), the Advisory Action mailed November
27, 2018 (“Advisory Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 25, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 18, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed May 16, 2019.
3 Claims 1, 6, 8, 14, and 16 were canceled. Final Act. 1–2.
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

2

INVENTION
The present invention relates to a computer-implemented method and
system for “predictively presenting search capabilities” for “search types
associated with a geographic location of a computing device.” Spec., Title
(capitalization altered), Abstr. Claim 2 is representative of the invention and
is reproduced below.
2. A computer-implemented method comprising:
before a user has initiated an image-based search at a mobile
device:
obtaining data indicating a current context including at
least a geographic location associated with the mobile device, the
geographic location being a location at which the mobile device
is located,
determining, using the data indicating the current context
including at least the geographic location associated with the
mobile device, that the mobile device is physically located
proximate to a predefined, geographic location,
in response to determining that the mobile device is
physically located proximate to the predefined, geographic
location:
accessing a repository that associates, for each
predefined geographic location of a plurality of predefined
geographic locations, a respective image-based search
type for the predefined geographic location, and wherein
the respective image-based search types define multiple
candidate image-based search types that each respectively
invoke a search type capability of an image search system
that is different from a search type capability invoked by
each other candidate image-based search type;
obtaining data from the repository, the data
indicating a particular image-based search type, from
among multiple candidate image-based search types, that
is identified by a predictive model as likely relevant to the
current context including at least the geographic location
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

3

associated with the mobile device, the identification based
on a determination that the geographic location is within a
threshold distance of the predefined, geographic location
and that the predefined, geographic location is associated
with the particular image-based search type, and
providing a user interface including a control for initiat ing
an image-based search of the particular image-based search type
that is identified by the predictive model as likely relevant to the
current context including at least the geographic location
associated with the mobile device.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.)
REFERENCES
Name Reference Date
Manber US 2006/0089792 A1 Apr. 27, 2006
Florance US 2009/0132316 A1 May 21, 2009
Mei US 2014/0250120 A1 Sept. 4, 2014

REJECTIONS4
Claims 2–5, 7, 9–13, 15, and 17–215 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Manber in view of Mei.
Final Act. 7–29.
Claims 22–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Manber, Mei, and Florance. Final Act. 29–33.

4 Claims 2–5, 7, 9–13, 15, and 17–25 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3–6. However, this
rejection was withdrawn in the Examiner’s Answer, and is no longer
pending on appeal. Ans. 2.
5 Although the statement of the rejection does not include claim 21 (see
Final Act. 7), claim 21 is rejected based on Manber and Mei (see Final Act.
28–29). We find this to be harmless error and add claim 21 here.
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

4

ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 2, the Examiner finds Mei teaches the claimed
“candidate image-based search types [associated with predefined geographic
locations] that each respectively invoke a search type capability of an image
search system that is different from a search type capability invoked by each
other candidate image-based search type” (emphasis omitted) because Mei’s
interactive multi-modal image search tool provides
[s]peech recognition module 524 [that] may also access
previously stored audio files and other similar data sources to
generate textual representations of audio data. Speech
recognition module 524 outputs a query in textual form. . . . the
search query is audio search type,
and
[an] optical character recognition capability includes the speech-
to-text or the speech recognition module 524 taught by Mei,
which is a different search type.
Final Act. 9–10 (citing Mei ¶¶ 57, 68, Fig. 5); Ans. 7. In the Advisory
Action, the Examiner adds that the claimed “image based search type is
taught by the image-address database search function in Manber [0033] and
[0045], and also taught by the ‘interactive image search tool’ in Mei [0024]
and [0068].” Advisory Act. 2. With respect to the claimed “obtaining,” the
Examiner finds Mei selects “a particular image-based search type [from the
candidate image-based search types] . . . relevant to . . . the geographic
location associated with the mobile device” (as claimed) because Mei’s
“GPS module 516 and compass module 518 are used to identify images
based on image location.” Ans. 7 (citing Mei ¶ 65); Final Act. 10–11 (citing
Mei ¶¶ 6, 53).
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

5

Having reviewed the evidence, we do not agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Mei and Manber teach selecting “a respective image-based
search type [from multiple candidate image-based search types] for the
predefined geographic location [identified by, or proximate to, the mobile
device]” where each “image-based search type . . . respectively invoke[s] a
search type capability of an image search system that is different from a
search type capability invoked by each other candidate image-based search
type,” as recited in claim 2. As Appellant explains, the claimed “search type
capability” of an “image-based search type” is a searching capability of an
image search system of a device, such as a barcode scanning capability of a
barcode scanner, a quick response (QR) code scanning capability of a QR
code scanner, an image recognizer capability of a mobile device’s image
recognizer, or an optical character recognition (OCR) capability of an
optical sensor/portable scanner. Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 17–18); see
Spec ¶¶ 17–18, 33, 38–39, 101. Appellant further explains that Mei’s multi-
modal image search tool provides speech-to-text and image searching
capabilities, but Mei’s search tool does not select an image-based search
type and search type capability based on a geographic location associated
with a mobile device. Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 3. Rather, Mei’s multi-
modal search tool “is using the [user’s] query to select search results, not
select a ‘search type.’” Reply Br. 3; see also Appeal Br. 11.
We agree with Appellant’s arguments, as Mei discloses a search based
on a “voice query” from which entities (i.e., words, such as “lake,” “sky,”
and “tree”) are extracted and provided to an image clustering engine that
“identifies candidate images from an image database 128 that correspond to
each of the three entities,” so that “a particular image for each entity can be
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

6

selected [from the candidate images] and a composite visual query can be
composed from the selected images.” See Mei ¶¶ 26–27, 57. Mei’s multi-
modal search tool can also “apply location-based context information to
candidate images” to identify “[c]andidate images and/or composite visual
query results that are related to the current location [of the user’s mobile
device].” See Mei ¶¶ 53, 65.
Thus, Mei’s search tool provides all search capabilities (e.g., speech-
to-text and image search) regardless of a location of the mobile device, and
provides search results based on the location of the mobile device. See Mei
¶¶ 26–27, 53, 57, 65, 68. As Appellant explains, however, Mei does not
invoke or select an image-based search type and search type capability
based on the location of the mobile device, as required by claim 2. Appeal
Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of
Manber and Florance make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Mei. As
Appellant explains, Manber merely “provide[s] a user with an image that is
associated with the current location of the mobile phone, rather than a type
of image-based search capability that is linked to the geographic location.”
Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Manber ¶¶ 12, 33, 45); see Manber ¶¶ 33 (“the
image-address database 43 permit[s] users of the mobile devices 20 to search
and view online Yellow Pages in which each listing (e.g., business) is
displayed with an image of an object (e.g., business building)”), 45 (“based
on an IP address of the mobile device 20. . . . only those listings
corresponding to the general geographic position may be searched”).
As the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support the
obviousness rejection of claim 2, and of independent claims 10 and 18
Appeal 2019-004630
Application 15/222,024

7

reciting similar limitations, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 2, 10, and 18. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejections of claims 3–5, 7, 9, 11–13, 15, 17, and 19–25 depending from one
of claims 2, 10, and 18. Because the issues discussed above with respect to
claims 2, 10, and 18 are dispositive as to the rejections of all claims, we do
not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments as to the
rejections of claims 2, 10, and 18. See Appeal Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 1–2.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2–5, 7, 9–13, 15, and 17–25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
2–5, 7, 9–13, 15,
17–21
103 Manber, Mei 2–5, 7, 9–13,
15, 17–21
22–25 103 Manber, Mei,
Florance
22–25
Overall
Outcome
2–5, 7, 9–13,
15, 17–25

REVERSED