Ex Parte Garcia-Barrio et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

14033794 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/033,794 09/23/2013 Laura Garcia-Barrio 26192 7590 03/28/2018 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 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. 16113-5588001 1066 EXAMINER MIAN, MUHAMMAD U ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAURA GARCIA-BARRIO, DAVID PETROU, and HARTWIG ADAM Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 1 Technology Center 2100 Before HUNG H. BUI, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1--4, 8-11, and 13-20. Claims 5-7 and 12 have been cancelled. App. Br. 1, 11-12 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Google Inc. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed July 7, 2016 ("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed January 9, 2017 ("Reply Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed November 9, 2016 ("Ans."); Final Office Action mailed February 1, 2016 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed September 23, 2013 ("Spec."). Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "using sensor inputs [e.g., camera or microphone] from a computing device [i.e., mobile device] to determine search query." Title. According to Appellants, an image input is obtained from a computing device (mobile device) when its image sensor (camera) is directed to a scene. At least an object of interest in the scene is determined from the image input, and a label (i.e., term that is descriptive of the object of interest) is identified for the object of interest. A search input (i.e., voice input) is received from the computing device, via a different mechanism from the image sensor (microphone) and ifthe search input (i.e., voice input) contains an ambiguity (e.g., pronoun including, for example, "it," "he," "she," "them," "that," and "this"), the ambiguity can be replaced or augmented with the identified label. A search result can then be formulated based on the label and the search input. Spec. i-fi-12, 27, 46-50. For example, a user may take a picture of an item of clothing, then provide input (e.g., microphone input) asking, "How much does it cost?" ... determine the label to correspond to the item of clothing by type. A search may be performed to return additional facets, such as a specific brand or a trend that is most relevant to the type of clothing. The additional terms, such as a [label] brand or trend, may be used in place of an ambiguous term in formulating the search query 147. Spec. i157. Claims 1, 15, and 20 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below: 1. A method, the method being implemented by one or more processors and comprising: 2 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 receiving, by a computing device from a user of the computing device, a search input; receiving, by an image sensor of the computing device, an image input of a scene to which the computing device is directed within a threshold period of time of receiving the search input; determining, from the image input, at least an object of interest in the scene; determining a label for the object of interest; determining that the search input includes an ambiguity; in response to determining the label for the object of interest and determining that the search input includes an ambiguity, generating a search query that augments or replaces the ambiguity with the determined label for the object of interest; obtaining a search result responsive to the generated search query; and providing the obtained search result in response to receiving the search input. App. Br. 10 (Claims App'x.). Evidence Considered Schechter et al. US 2014/0172892 Al June 19, 2014 Baker et al. US 2014/0114643 Al Apr. 24, 2014 Solem et al. US 2013/0346068 Al Dec. 261, 2013 Examiner's Rejections (1) Claims 1--4, 8, 10, 11, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Solem and Schechter. Final Act. 3-15. (2) Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Solem, Schechter, and Baker. Final Act. 15-16. 3 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 ANALYSIS Claims 1, 15, and 20 In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 15, and 20, the Examiner finds Solem teaches all the limitations, including: (1) "receiving, by a computing device from a user of the computing device, a search input;" (2) "receiving, by an image sensor of the computing device, an image input of a scene ... ;" (3) "determining, from the image input, at least an object of interest in the scene;" (4) "determining a label forthe object of interest;" (5) "determining that the search input includes an ambiguity;" ( 6) "in response to determining the label for the object of interest and determining that the search input includes an ambiguity, generating a search query that augments or replaces the ambiguity with the determined label for the object of interest;" "(7) "obtaining a search result responsive to the generated search query;" and (8) "providing the obtained search result in response to receiving the search input." Final Act. 3-5 (citing Solem i-fi-155, 124, 128- 129, 163-166). The Examiner acknowledges Solem inherently teaches, but nevertheless relies on Schechter for expressly teaching, a threshold period of time between "a search input" and "an image input of a scene" captured by an image sensor, to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 5 (citing Schechter i-fi-1 48, 51 ). Appellants dispute that Solem teaches that the disambiguation ("augment[ing] or replac[ing] the ambiguity") based on information determined from "an image input of a scene to which the computing device is directed within a threshold period of time of receiving the search input." App. Br. 5---6. While Appellants quote Solem's discussion that 4 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 disambiguating pronouns in a search may be done "using a ... previously tagged photograph" (id. at 5, quoting Solem i-f 165), Appellants argue that "Solem simply does not teach disambiguating a query by processing an untagged image captured by the image sensor of the computing device." App. Br. 5---6. However, this argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim, which does not specify that the image input is untagged. Additionally, Appellants argue "the proposed modification of Solem [to incorporate Schechter' s teachings] lacks any rational underpinning." App. Br. 3--4. For example, Appellants argue there is no reason to incorporate Schechter' s teachings into Solem because: (1) "Solem' s disambiguation is not described in the context of image input that is received 'by an image sensor of the computing device," and instead, "teaches searching for photos stored in a collection of tagged digital photos"; (2) "Schechter [only] teaches obtaining contextual information from presented or captured content" and (3) "the proposed modification of Solem would result in a system in which a user [i] searches for a photo that is already being presented or [ii] searches for a photo using images of whatever objects happen to presently being captured by the image sensor" and, as such, "lack any rational underpinning." App. Br. 3---6 (citing Solem i-fi-16, 170; Schechter ,-r 50). Appellants also argue "the proposed modification is improper" because ( 1) "it changes the principle of operation of Solem" and (2) "it would render Solem unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." App. Br. 7-8. According to Appellants, "[ r ]ather than searching within a collection of tagged digital photographs as taught by Solem, the proposed modification changes the principle of operation of Solem to one of searching elsewhere 5 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 using context information gleaned from a presented image." App. Br. 7. Likewise, "[i]f instead of searching within the collection of digital photographs, Solem were modified to search elsewhere using context information obtained from a presented image, the system of Solem is no longer satisfactory for the intended purpose of 'voice-based photo searching' as described in Solem." App. Br. 8. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments supported by evidence. Ans. 2-8. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For example, as correctly recognized by the Examiner, Solem teaches disambiguating ambiguity (e.g., pronoun) in a search input based on an image input of a scene that is received by an image sensor of a computing device. Ans. 2-3 (citing Solem i-fi-f 124, 163-165). Because Solem teaches a discrete time between (1) an image input of a scene received by an image sensor (e.g. "previously tagged photograph" in paragraph 165) and (2) a search input from a user, we agree with the Examiner that (1) "one of ordinary skill in the art would instantly recognize that the teachings of Solem encompass disambiguating pronouns in a search input based on a photograph of a scene taken within a threshold period of time of receiving the search input," as recited in claims 1, 15, and 20; and (2) to the extent necessary, Schechter teaches "receiving an image input within a threshold period of time of receiving a search input." Ans. 4--5 (citing Schechter i-fi-1 45, 48, 50-51 ). Schechter is not cited for "obtaining contextual information from presented or captured content" and, as such, cannot change 6 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 the principle of operation of Solem or render Solem unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, as Appellants argue. App. Br. 7-8. In the Reply, Appellants raise several new arguments against the Examiner's combination of Solem and Schechter, including: (1) Solem does not teach using image input to determine a tag (i.e., Appellants' claimed "label"); (2) Solem imposes no time-based restriction on the image capture; and (3) "Solem does not contemplate using whatever scene the camera is directed toward for disambiguating search terms." Reply Br. 2-7. However, these arguments are belated disputes regarding the Examiner's factual findings. In the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, we decline to consider these new argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(vii) (2011) (second sentence); In re Hyatt, 211F.3d1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal Brief); Exparte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 ( BPAI 2010) (informative) ("[p ]roperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause."). Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded of error regarding the Examiner's obviousness rejection and sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 20 and its dependent claims 2--4, 7 Appeal2017-004155 Application 14/033,794 8-11, 13, 14, and 16-19, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 8. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 8-11, and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1--4, 8- 11, and 13-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2011 ). AFFIRMED 8