Ex Parte Spivack et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 30, 2017

14520260 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 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.
14/520,260 10/21/2014 Nova Spivack 116313- 8002.U S03 9633
105483 7590 09/01/2017
Perkins Coie LLP- NYC General
P.O. BOX 1247
Seattle, WA 98111-1247
EXAMINER
BROMELL, ALEXANDRIA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2017 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):
patentprocurement @perkinscoie. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NOVA SPIVACK, CHRIS JONES, PETER ROYAL,
LEWIS TUCKER, SCOTT WHITE, JAMES M. WISSNER,
BORIS ALEXSANDROVSKY, and JONATHAN Q. LI
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 16—20, 22, and 25—35 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “[sjystems and methods of a
knowledge management networking” by “tracking an explicit relationship
between a first set of at least two objects,” and “identifying an implicit
relationship between a second set of at least two objects ... the implicit
relationship to be identified based on a semantic relationship between the at
least two objects,” to provide “semantics enabled knowledge networking”
(Spec. 12; Abstract).
Independent claim 16, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
16. A method performed in a web-based networking
environment under which each of a plurality of users is enabled
to add web-items to one or more web pages that are associated
with that user, and users are associated with other users via
explicit and implicit relationships, the method comprising:
enabling users to identify other users that are permitted to
view and share web items that are added by the users to their
web pages in the web-based networking environment, wherein,
for a given item the other users are identified by a relationship
between a user adding the web item and other users that are
permitted to view and share the web item;
for web items that are added by a given user, maintaining
metadata associating the web items with the user and metadata
used to identify other users who are permitted to view and share
the web items;
receiving a search query from a first user, the search
query including information relating to at least one of one or
more web items and one or more second users;
retrieving a search result comprising web items
associated with the search query, the web items that are
retrieved including web items that were added to the web-based
networking environment by other users who are explicitly or
implicitly related to the first user and that the first user is
2
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
permitted by the users who added the web items to view and
share;
ranking the web items in the search result based, at least
in part, on a degree of separation between the first user and
other users who added the web items to the web-based
networking environment;
returning a first portion of the web items in their ranked
order;
tracking sharing of web items by users;
updating semantic data associated with a specific user
based on web items shared by the specific user; and
recommending a specific web item to the specific user
based on a sematic[sic] relationship between the specific web
item and the semantic data associated with the specific user.
REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 16—20, 22, and 25—35 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cane (US 2008/0183694 Al; published
July 31, 2008) (Final Act. 3-14).
ANALYSIS
Claims 16—20, 22, 28, and 31—35
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Cane discloses all
the limitations of independent claims 16, 31, and 35 (App. Br. 7—8).
Particularly, Appellants assert the Examiner erred in finding Cane’s dynamic
sharing discloses “recommending a specific web item to the specific user
based on a sematic[sic] relationship between the specific web item and the
semantic data associated with the specific user” as recited in claim 16
because Cane’s sharing “is unrelated to recommending a web item” or
“‘recommending’ a ‘specific web item’ to a ‘specific user’ based on a
relationship between the specific web item and the specific user,” as claimed
3
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
(App. Br. 8 (citing Cane 1 57)). Appellants additionally argue “[t]he sharing
of content in Cane is not performed on an individual basis based on a
relationship that applies specifically to the individual. Instead, [Cane’s]
content is shared with all users who are assigned with the ‘Family’ tag”
(App. Br. 8 (citing Cane 1 57); see also Reply Br. 3). Appellants further
argue Cane’s “‘Family’ tag has nothing to do with any ‘semantic
relationship’ between a ‘web item’ and ‘semantic data’ associated with a
user, as recited”; rather, Cane’s “’Family’ tag represents a relationship
between users at most” (App. Br. 8 (citing Cane ^fl[ 6, 57, Abstract); see also
Reply Br. 3). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Cane’s “item is recommended
to a user when it is shared to a user” (Ans. 15 (citing Cane 1 57)). Cane’s
dynamic sharing between “Family” contacts is commensurate with the broad
description of “recommending” a web item in Appellants’ Specification (see
Cane 1 57; see also Spec. ^fl[ 100, 236, 238).1
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Cane does
not teach the claimed “recommending” because Cane’s sharing “is to an
1 Appellants’ Specification describes “providing] educated
recommendations to users, for example, users that opt-in to receive
recommendations from the system and/or other users” is done “based on a
user’s profile, history, objects, nets,friends, etc.” to “present a list of
objects/items likely to be of interest to the user’'' (see Spec. 1236 (emphases
added)). Additionally, “[rRecommendations can be made by virtue of owners
of items allowing their items to be at least partially shared and recipients
who opt in to receive recommendations'1'’ and, “[depending on the privacy
preferences and setting of the connected or unconnected user, the article can
automatically be made available to the user’'' (see Spec. ^fl[ 100, 238
(emphases added)).
4
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
entire group of people with the ‘Family’ tag, not to any specific user” (Reply
Br. 3; see also App. Br. 8). Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with
the scope of claim 16. Claim 16 recites “recommending a specific web item
to the specific user based on a sema[n]tic relationship,” however, claim 16
does not preclude recommending the same specific item to “a group made
up of one or more people” that are grouped together based on the same
semantic relationship (Ans. 15—16).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Cane’s “Family”
grouping of users discloses the claimed semantic relationship between a
specific web item (“content shared to the family,” see Cane 1 57) and
semantic data associated with the Family-tagged users (Ans. 4—5, 15—16;
Final Act. 7).2 Particularly, Cane’s “Family” tag—a label or meta-data
associated with the user’s profile—teaches semantic data associated with the
user for dynamic, real time sharing of family-tagged photos (Ans. 16; see
Cane 1121, 30, 57).
Thus, for the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of independent claim 16, and independent claims 31 and 35 argued
for substantially the same reasons (App. Br. 7—8). We also sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of dependent claims 17—20, 22, 28, and
32—34, argued for their dependency on claims 16 and 31 (App. Br. 11—12).
2 The features of claims 21, 23, and 24—rejected on pages 6 and 7 of the
Final Action—were incorporated into independent claim 16 in Appellants’
After-Final Amendment (dated Dec. 28, 2015) entered via the Advisory
Action dated Feb. 4, 2016 (see Advisory Action 1—2).
5
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
Claim 25
Appellants contend Cane does not teach “updating semantic data
relating to the user based on the user visits to web pages associated with
other users,” as recited in claim 25 (App. Br. 9). Particularly, Appellants
argue “[t]he ‘dynamic sharing’ and the ‘content item’ of Cane have nothing
to do with ‘updating semantic data’ or ‘user visits to web pages’” (App. Br.
9). Appellants acknowledge “[paragraph [0035] of Cane discloses tracking
users’ access of content (e.g. a blog or file [of user Bob])” using a
“footprint,” but argue Cane fails to disclose “that such ‘footprint’ is part of
an updated semantic data relating to a user (Bob or accessing user)” and
“that any semantic data relating to the accessing user is updated based on the
‘footprint’ of the accessing user visiting Bob’s blog or file” (Reply Br. 3).
We do not agree with Appellants. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that Cane tracks user visits to web pages associated with other
users (e.g., Bob’s web page), and updates semantic data (a “footprint”)
relating to the visiting user (a user accessing Bob’s content) based on the
user’s visits to Bob’s content page (Ans. 16—17 (citing Cane 135)). Cane’s
“footprint that is created and then updated based on user profile access”
teaches the claimed “semantic data relating to the [visiting] user” because
the visiting user causes the “footprint” to be updated when the user visits
Bob’s content page (Ans. 17; see Cane 135). Additionally, this semantic
data (“footprint”) relating to the visiting user allows the visiting user “to
initiate a chat session with the owner [Bob] of a piece of interesting content”
(see Cane 135).
6
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25, and we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 25.
Claim 26
Appellants contend Cane does not teach that “search results are
generated based on any data associated with user profiles” as required by
claim 26 because Cane does not disclose “searching conducted after the user
selects a tag” and “does not disclose that the ‘family’ tag has anything to do
with generating the search results” (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4).
We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner Cane teaches
“that a search may be conducted to determine all the files available to a user
which may then be searched or filtered using specific tags” that are
“semantic data associated with the user profile of the first [searching] user”
as claimed (Ans. 17—18 (citing Cane ^fl[ 47-48, Figs. 7A—8A)). Moreover,
Cane’s paragraph 32, continuing to explain how a search is conducted,
further supports the Examiner’s finding that search results are generated
based on the searcher’s profile tags (semantic data) (see Cane 132 (“The
search universe may also be bounded by using tags. For example, a child
may be limited to searching only content that is tagged ‘family ’. . . that
limits what possible search results could be returned'1'’ (emphases added))).
Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26, and we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 26.
Claims 27 and 30
With respect to dependent claim 27, Appellants contend the Examiner
erred in finding Cane teaches “identifying semantic data using Natural
7
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
Language Processing,” as claimed (App. Br. 10). Appellants argue Cane’s
“tags and . . . contacts have nothing to do with any ‘Natural Language
Processing’” (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4). We agree with
Appellants. Cane’s tag matching function by “a tag [that] may match
relationships as recognized by the user” (Ans. 19 (emphasis added)) does
not employ Natural Language Processing—which requires a machine-based
text analysis to detect parts of speech (see Spec. ^fl[ 96, 248, 326). We,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 27,
as the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to support this
rejection.
With respect to claim 30, Appellants argue the Examiner errs for the
same reasons as claim 27 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4—5). Claim 30, however,
is broader than claim 27, as it requires “using one or more of i) “Natural
Language Processing,” ii) “entity extraction,” and iii) “ontological
classification.” We find Cane’s “’Family’ tag” is commensurate with, and
therefore teaches, the “ontological classification” as claimed and described
in Appellants’ Specification. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claim 30 (see Cane 1 57; Spec. ^fl[ 20, 168, 249).3
3 Appellants’ Specification describes a “predetermined set of ontologies in
the knowledge database, ” exemplary “ontologies including] the ontologies
for ‘Web 2.0’, ‘Oceanography’, ‘Enology’, ‘cosmology’, ‘Biomedical
Ontology’, ‘Proteomics’, ‘Clothing’, ‘Internet’, ‘Electronics’, ‘Real estate’,
‘Agricultural’, ‘Beer’, and ‘Investment’” (see Spec. ]Hf 20, 168 (emphases
added)). These ontologies (in combination with Natural Language
Processing) “can detect classes of concepts in intellectual content and
semantically classify the concepts as, one or more of but not limited to,
people, companies, places, addresses, phone numbers, general concepts, or
finer classifications of the above” (see Spec. 1249 (emphases added)).
8
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
Claim 29
Appellants contend Cane does not teach “automatically adding
semantic tags to user profiles and web items,” as claimed (App. Br. 11).
Particularly, Appellants argue Cane’s “user manually assigns tags to the web
site content,” and “Cane merely discloses sharing photos to a group of
people based on the ‘Family’ tag, and does not disclose adding a content
item to a user’s profile” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5).
We do not agree. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Cane
teaches an item’s semantic tag is automatically added to a user’s profile (of
a new user classified under the “Family” group) when the item (e.g., a
photo) is automatically shared with that user (Ans. 20 (citing Cane 1 57, Fig.
7A)).
Additionally, Cane’s web site automatically adds a semantic tag to a
shared web item when the user’s site interface summarizes the web items
shared to the user and who has shared the items to the user; and when the
site updates a “footprint” to indicate who accessed the user’s shared web
items and when (see Cane H 35, 48; Ans. 20).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 29, as Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 16—20, 22, 25, 26, and 28—
35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
9
Appeal 2017-004709
Application 14/520,260
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10