Ex Parte Anchala

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2017

13294882 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
13/294,882 11/11/2011 Arvindeep Singh Anchala 20110768 4145
25537 7590
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, FOLASHADE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARVINDEEP SINGH ANCHALA
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
Technology Center 3600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—9, and 22—33, which are all of the pending claims. Claims 10-
21 are canceled. App. Br. 25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed invention is directed to a feedback loop for capturing, in
an interactive customer retail or service channel of a business enterprise,
explicit feedback from a user for a similar or related transaction initiated by
the user in a different channel. The explicit user feedback captured in the
second channel can be used to evaluate and, if desired, make improvements
to user interface components related to user transactions in the first channel.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
presenting, via a client device, an automated service interface of
a first channel of an enterprise system to a user, via automated
communication through a network between the client device and
the enterprise system using the first channel, the automated
service interface including a set of user interface (UI) elements
for interaction with the user via the client device;
receiving, via a server, transaction data from the client device
related to a first transaction between the client device of the user
and the enterprise system for products or services offered by the
enterprise system, the first transaction implemented via the
automated service interface of the first channel of the enterprise
system provided to the client device of the user, the server
implemented on at least one computer having a processor and an
interface configured for communication via the network;
storing, in a database, the transaction data related to the first
transaction, the stored transaction data including a set of actions
performed by the user via the client device using the set of UI
elements of the automated service interface of the first channel
of the enterprise system;
2
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
detecting, by the enterprise system, a second transaction between
a same or different client device of the user and the enterprise
system, the second transaction implemented via a second channel
of the enterprise system or via an automated service interface of
the second channel, the second channel different from the first
channel;
determining via the server whether the second transaction
between the same or different client device of the user and the
enterprise system is related to the first transaction;
in response to determining that the second transaction is related
to the first transaction, detecting, via the server, a relevant action
from the set of actions of the stored transaction data of the first
transaction;
capturing from the user, via the same or different client device,
in the second channel or the automated service interface of the
second channel, an explicit reason for the user's performance of
the relevant action, the explicit reason representing feedback
from the user about the automated service interface of the first
channel with respect to the first transaction; and
determining, via the server, whether to modify the set of UI
elements of the automated service interface of the first channel
for subsequent transactions by the client device of the user via
the first channel based on the stored transaction data and the
explicit reason.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Teeter US 2005/0278231 A1 Dec. 15,2005
Gokturk US 2008/0177640 A1 July 24, 2008
Williams US 2010/0131420 A1 May 27, 2010
Williams US 8,032,426 Oct. 4,2011
Jay US 8,600,035 B2 Dec. 3,2013
3
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—9 and 22—33 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility
under § 101. Final Act. 7.
Claims 1—9 and 22—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Williams ’420 in view of Williams ’426, Gokturk
and Jay. Final Act. 8—24.
Claims 29—33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Williams ’426, Williams ’420, Gokturk, Jay, and Teeter.
Final Act. 24—30.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and Final Action and
we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if Appellant
failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not unilaterally
review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte Frye, 94
USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1313—14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Board may treat arguments Appellant
failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Claims 1—9 and 22—33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant argues that the claims recite more than an abstract idea
because the system is able to update, and thus improve the user interface of
the automated system. App. Br. 10—11. Appellant further argues that the
steps in the claims, for example, 1) detecting a second transaction
related to the first transaction in different communication channels,
2) capturing cross-channel feedback and 3) determining whether to modify
4
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
the set of UI elements of the automated service interface of the first channel
presented to the client device, are more than a general linking of an abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. According to Appellant, the
claims recite a client device interacting with a server and the enterprise
system via a network to determine cross-channel feedback and modify UI
elements of the automated service interface of the first channel of the
enterprise system. App. Br. 11.
We do not agree. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant’s
claims are directed to stored information in the form of first transaction data
and new information in the form of second transaction data, and the
determination of whether to modify the user interface element, without
actually modifying, constitutes an abstract idea. See Ans. 17. We further
agree with the Examiner, that the crux of Appellant’s invention is to present
information via a user interface and collect information via feedback from
the user about the automated service interface of the first channel with
respect to the first transaction surveying the user. We agree that such
surveying technology is not rooted in computer technology improvement.
See Ans. 20—21.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Supreme Court 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’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In Alice, the Supreme Court
reiterated the two-step framework previously set forth in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289,
1300 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step is
5
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea, as the Examiner concludes in
this case. If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends.
Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the
claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination”’ to
determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the nature
of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297).
Regarding step one of Alice, we need to determine whether claim 1 is
directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Claim 1 merely recites analyzing
feedback regarding a first transaction received by another second channel
and outputting information to modify the UI elements for the first channel
which in essence automates fixing a malfunctioning webpage presented to a
user based on feedback provided by the user during a second transaction that
identifies the failed first transaction through historic data. Appellant’s own
Specification acknowledges that “the corrective action framework enables
these systems to detect and track cross-channel user behavior in substantially
real time so as to create new business opportunities and improve customer
experience for the organization as a whole” (Spec. para. 17; see also Ans.
21). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the invention provides a
solution to a surveying problem directed to a business transaction and not
necessarily rooted in computer technology. See Ans. 21.
In this regard, the claims are similar to the claims that our reviewing
courts have found patent ineligible in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353—54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting information and
“analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
6
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
within the abstract-idea category”), Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP
America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2015), cert, denied, 136 S. Ct.
2510, 195 L. Ed. 2d 841 (2016) (using organizational and product group
hierarchies to determine a price), and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978)
(mathematical algorithm used for adjusting an alarm limit). A person would
also be capable of performing the claimed steps or functions as mental steps,
or with the aid of pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). That is, claim 1
involves nothing more than automating the process of fixing a webpage
based on a user’s solicited feedback— an abstract idea. See Elec. Power
Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354.
We further refer to Content Extraction, where the Federal Circuit has
provided additional guidance on the issue of statutory subject matter by
holding claims to collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory were directed
to an abstract idea and therefore unpatentable under § 101. Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2014). On this record, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that the claims include an abstract idea, under step one of
Alice.
As to Alice step two, we find that claim 1, does not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These steps are all part of the
process of analyzing and outputting information for automating fixing a
webpage, and they simply elaborate on the abstract idea.
As set forth in Alice, the introduction of a processor of a computer
system into the claims to implement an abstract idea is not a patentable
application of the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357—58. Like Alice,
7
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
the computer implementation here is purely conventional and performs basic
functions. See id. at 2359—60. That is, the claims do not effect an
improvement to another technology or technical field, and does not amount
to an improvement to the functioning of a computer itself. Id. Further,
Appellant does not adequately show how the claimed steps are done
technically such that they cannot be done manually or that they are not
routine and conventional functions of a generic computer. See Versata, 793
F.3d at 1334 (“the limitations of claim 17 involve arranging a hierarchy of
organizational and product groups, storing pricing information, retrieving
applicable pricing information, sorting pricing information, eliminating less
restrictive pricing information, and determining the price. All of these
limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry.”). Instead, we find a person would also be capable of
performing the claimed steps or functions as mental steps, even when
performed by a computer. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely
mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer,
was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson’’ ).
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons we also affirm the rejections of claims 2—9 and 22—33 under 35
U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to subject matter that is judicially-excepted
from patent eligibility under § 101.
Claims 1—9 and 22—33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant argues that Williams ’420 uses questions to solicit feedback
regarding returned products—not an interface (App. Br. 19-20). Appellant
generally states what each reference teaches and then argues that Williams
8
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
’426, Gokturk, Jay, and Teeter do not teach user feedback received from a
second channel to modify an interface of a first channel (App. Br. 20—21).
We do not agree. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Williams ’420 was cited by the
Examiner for teaching soliciting feedback to improve the customer’s
experience and Williams ’426 was cited for correlating based on historic
stored data first and second transactions (Ans. 22—25). Of most relevance,
Gokturk was cited for teaching an “editor interface 420 may convey the
feedback 421 to rectify and/or filter the results of the programmatic element”
(para. 87; see Ans. 25). Gokturk teaches “human editor 424 may be able to
provide feedback that enables the identified erroneous result to be rectified.
For example, the human operator 224 may specify input that corrects the
displayed alignment, via text or other kind of input” (para. 91; see Ans. 25).
Gokturk teaches “a user's feedback parameters on a client side terminal
(usually a Web browser now) result in the feedback parameters being
communicated to a remote server” (para. 244; see Ans. 25). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that one skilled in the art at the time of the invention
would have combined the teachings of using feedback from a user solicited
during a second transaction regarding a first transaction based on stored
historical data as taught by Williams ’420 and Williams ’426, and when the
feedback relates to a webpage malfunction providing automated rectification
of the U1 malfunction through programmatic elements as taught by Gokturk.
“Common sense teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses
beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill
will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a
9
Appeal 2016-006263
Application 13/294,882
puzzle.” See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007); see
also id. at 421 (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2—9
and 22—33 for the same reasons as stated supra because Appellant relies on
the same arguments and asserts that the additional references do not cure the
identified deficiency (see App. Br. 21—22).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—9 and 22—33 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10