Cognitive Scale, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 30, 20212020002381 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/734,498 06/09/2015 Neeraj Chawla COGSC-15-009.2 1011 33438 7590 06/30/2021 TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP P.O. BOX 203518 AUSTIN, TX 78720 EXAMINER ALABI, OLUWATOSIN O ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2126 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/30/2021 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com celeste@tcciplaw.com tmunoz@tcciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NEERAJ CHAWLA, JOSHUA L. SEGARS, and MANOJ SAXENA ___________ Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 4. Claims 1 and 7 are independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 16, 2019), the Final Action (mailed April 25, 2019) and the Answer (mailed November 18, 2019), for the respective details. Appeal 2020–002385 (14/734,495) is a related appeal. See Appeal Brief 1. 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (“The Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 2 We affirm. Introduction According to Appellant, “A method, system and computer-usable medium are disclosed for cognitive inference and learning operations” Specification ¶ 6. Representative Claim3 (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A computer-implementable method for providing composite cognitive insights comprising: receiving streams of data from a plurality of data sources; processing the streams of data from the plurality of data sources via a cognitive inference and learning system, the processing the streams of data from the plurality of data sources performing data enriching and generating a sub-graph for incorporation into a cognitive graph, the cognitive graph being stored within a repository of cognitive graphs, the cognitive inference and learning system executing on a hardware processor of an information processing system, the cognitive inference and learning system and the word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies Cognitive Scale, Inc., as the real party in interest. See Appeal Brief 1. 3 Appellant does not argue the claims individually. See Appeal Brief 4–8. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”). Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 3 information processing system providing a cognitive computing function, the cognitive inference and learning system comprising a cognitive platform, the cognitive platform comprising a cognitive engine, the cognitive engine comprising a dataset engine, a graph query engine and an insight engine, the insight engine comprising an insight agent, the dataset engine being implemented to establish and maintain a dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline, the graph query engine being implemented to receive and process queries such that the queries are bridged into the cognitive graph, the insight/learning engine being implemented to generate a cognitive insight from the cognitive graph, the dataset engine, the graph query engine and the insight/learning engine operating collaboratively to generate the cognitive insight; a sourcing agent, the sourcing agent sourcing the data streams and the enriched data streams; and, a destination agent, the destination agent publishing the cognitively processed insights to a consumer of cognitive insight data; processing the cognitive graph via the insight agent, the processing the cognitive graph providing a plurality of individual cognitive insights for a user, the insight agent using the cognitive graph as a data source to provide the plurality of individual insights; generating a composite cognitive insight, the composite cognitive insight being composed of the plurality of individual cognitive insights, the generating orchestrating the insight agent to generate the composite cognitive insight from the plurality of individual cognitive insights; and, Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 4 providing the composite cognitive insight to the user via the cognitive application, the cognitive application presenting the user with the composite cognitive insight as a set of cognitive media content, the set of cognitive media content being selected from a repository of cognitive media content by the cognitive platform, the set of cognitive media content comprising a commercial offer content element. References Name4 Reference Date Baughman US 2015/0294216 A1 October 15, 2015 Bauer US 2015/0317376 A1 November 5, 2015 Chandalia US 9,224,101 B1 December 29, 2015 Shi-Nash US 2017/0039602 A1 February 9, 2017 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Final Action 4–5. Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer, Baughman and Chandalia. Final Action 6– 40. Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia and Shi-Nash. Final Action 41–44. 4 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 5 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answers in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief, except where noted. 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) Rejection Appellant contends, “It is believed that the indefiniteness rejection[ ] can be readily addressed when the rejections over the art are resolved.” Appeal Brief 4. Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error because Appellant does not address the merits of the rejection in the instant application. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“The arguments shall explain why the examiner erred as to each ground of rejection contested by appellant.”) (“Except as provided for in §§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the present appeal.”). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 1– 12. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejections It is noted at the outset that Appellant does not provide citations to the portions of the Examiner’s rejection that Appellant alleges are erroneous. Appellant contends, in regard to independent claims 1 and 7 that “when discussing the elements of a cognitive inference and learning system, Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 6 the cognitive inference and learning system comprising a cognitive platform, the cognitive platform comprising a cognitive engine, the cognitive engine comprising an insight engine, the insight engine comprising an insight agent, the examiner cites to Bauer.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellant argues: Specifically, the examiner cites to a portion of Bauer which discloses leveraging multiple data sources to provide predictive models for skill assessment and predictions, converting enterprise data into knowledge graphs to represent expert-skill grouping information and based the skill assessment prediction at least in part on machine learning and data mining techniques including graph inference and co-clustering (see e.g., Bauer, Paragraph [0077]). Appeal Brief 5. The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraph 77 only. The Examiner finds Bauer discloses a cognitive inference and learning system in paragraphs 46, 77, 84, 85 and Figure 5; a cognitive platform comprising a cognitive engine in paragraphs 5 and 89–91; an insight engine comprising an insight agent in paragraphs 80–83, 90 and 91. See Final Action 6–10. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Merely reciting language of the claims and asserting the cited prior art reference does not teach or suggest the claim limitation is insufficient. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Appellant further contends, “These deficiencies of Bauer are not cured by Baughman or Chandalia, alone or in combination.” Appeal Brief 5. Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient as alleged and therefore Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant contends, [N]owhere within the cited portions of Bauer (nor anywhere else in Bauer) is there any disclosure or suggestion of Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 7 cognitive engine comprising a dataset engine, a graph query engine and an insight engine as disclosed and claimed, much less the dataset engine being implemented to establish and maintain a dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline, the graph query engine being implemented to receive and process queries such that the queries are bridged into the cognitive graph, the insight/learning engine being implemented to generate a cognitive insight from the cognitive graph, the dataset engine, the graph query engine and the insight/learning engine operating collaboratively to generate the cognitive insight. These deficiencies of Bauer are not cured by Baughman or Chandalia, alone or in combination. Appeal Brief 6 (referring to Bauer ¶¶ 90, 91). The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 only. The Examiner finds Bauer discloses the “the cognitive engine comprising a dataset engine, a graph query engine and an insight engine, the insight engine comprising an insight agent, the dataset engine being implemented to establish and maintain a dynamic data ingestion and enrichment pipeline” limitation in paragraphs 26, 27, 33, 34, 46, 75, 81, 82, 90 and 91, as well as, Figure 1. See Final Action 8–9. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient as alleged and therefore Appellant’s contention that neither Baughman nor Chandalia, alone or in combination, fail to address Bauer’s alleged deficit is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant contends: [N]owhere within the cited portions of Bauer (nor anywhere else in Bauer) is there any disclosure or suggestion of cognitive engine comprising a sourcing agent and a destination agent, much less the sourcing agent sourcing the data streams and the enriched data streams and the destination agent publishing Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 8 the cognitively processed insights to a consumer of cognitive insight data. These deficiencies of Bauer are not cured by Baughman or Chandalia, alone or in combination. Appeal Brief 6 (referring to Bauer ¶¶ 90, 91). The Examiner does not rely on Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 only. The Examiner cites Bauer’s paragraph 46 and Figure 1, as well as, Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 to disclose the claimed sourcing agent. See Final Action 10. The Examiner cites Bauer’s paragraphs 70 and 77, as well as, Bauer’s paragraphs 90 and 91 to disclose the claimed destination agent. See Final Action 10–11. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Furthermore, Appellant has not shown that Bauer is deficient as alleged and therefore Appellant’s contention that neither Baughman nor Chandalia, alone or in combination, fail to address Bauer’s alleged deficit is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant contends: [T]hat nowhere within the cited portions of Bauer and Chandalia (nor anywhere else in Bauer and Chandalia) is there any disclosure or suggestion of providing the composite cognitive insight to the user via the cognitive application, the cognitive application presenting the user with the composite cognitive insight as a set of cognitive media content, the set of cognitive media content being selected from a repository of cognitive media content by the cognitive platform, as required by claims 1 and as substantially required by claim 7. Appeal Brief 7; see Bauer 71–72; Chandalia column 1, lines 36–40, column 2 line 66 – column 3, line 2). Appellant concludes, “Accordingly, claims 1 and 7 are allowable over Bauer and Chandalia. Claims 2–6 depend from claim 1 and are allowable for Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 9 at least this reason. Claims 8– 12 depend from claim 7 and are allowable for at least this reason.” Appeal Brief 7. The Examiner relies upon Bauer’s paragraphs 76, 77, 89 and 90 in addition to paragraphs 71 and 72 in combination with Baughman’s paragraphs 90 and 125, as well as, Chandalia (column 1, lines 36–48, column 2, line 66 – column 3, line 2, column 6, lines 12–35) to disclose the alleged disputed limitations. See Final Action 14–16. The Examiner determines that, “It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate use cognitive media content comprising a commercial offer and streaming data as disclosed by Chandalia with the information processing method collectively disclosed by Bauer and Baughman.” Final Action 16. The Examiner further determines that, “One of ordinary skill in the arts would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide an improvement of developing a model to support advertising campaigns that can capitalizes on quickly developing trends in user behavior (Chandalia, 1:27-36).” Final Action 16. Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred because Appellant’s arguments fail to address all the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 7, as well as, dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 7. Appellant argues: [T]hat nowhere within the cited portions of Bauer and Shi- Nash (nor anywhere else in Bauer and Shi-Nash) is there any disclosure or suggestion of referencing a cognitive persona when generating the composite cognitive insight, the cognitive persona comprising an archetype user model representing a common set Appeal 2020–002381 Application 14/734,498 10 of attributes associated with a hypothesized group of users, as required by claims 4 and 10. Accordingly, claims 4 and 10 are allowable over Bauer, Chandalia and Shi-Nash for at least this additional reason. Appeal Brief 9; see Bauer ¶7, Shi-Nash ¶¶ 2, 3 and 83. In regard to claims 4 and 10, the Examiner relied upon the combination of Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia and Shi-Nash. See Final Action 41. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of dependent claims 4 and 10 because Appellant’s arguments fail to address the merits of the obviousness rejection. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. CONCLUSION Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–12 112 Indefiniteness 1–12 1–3, 5–9, 11, 12 103 Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia 1–3, 5–9, 11, 12 4, 10 103 Bauer, Baughman, Chandalia, Shi- Nash 4, 10 Overall Outcome 1–12 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation