Ex Parte AnchalaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201713294882 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation