Gemalto SA

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2022

2020005152 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2022)

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. 15/915,177 03/08/2018 Hongfei Du GEMA 200008US02 5492 27885 7590 01/24/2022 FAY SHARPE LLP 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 EXAMINER VU, QUOC THAI NGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/24/2022 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@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HONGFEI DU and YU CHEN Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 Technology Center 2600 Before ERIC B. CHEN, HUNG H. BUI, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies GEMALTO SA as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to a server accessing a user equipment based on whether the user equipment possesses the requested content and is located within a target geographical location. See Spec. Abstract. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A method of accessing for a geographical location information-based service in a server of a machine type communication based communication system, the method comprising: (A) broadcasting or multicasting a content request message, the content request message comprising information on requested content and information indicating a target geographical location; (B) receiving a response message from at least one user equipment, the response message indicating that the at least one user equipment possesses the requested content, and the at least one user equipment being located within the target geographical location in the content request message; and (C) acquiring the requested content from the at least one user equipment; wherein acquiring the requested content comprises: acquiring the requested content by establishing a connection with the at least one user equipment; and wherein after (C), the method further comprises: releasing the connection with the at least one user equipment. Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art: Name Number Date Athsani US 2009/0148124 A1 June 11, 2009 Huang US 2010/0097989 A1 Apr. 22, 2010 Shear US 2009/0210933 A1 Aug. 20, 2009 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Huang and Shear. Final Act. 3-12. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Huang, Shear, and Athsani. Final Act. 12. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15 stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,949,066 B2. See Final Act. 12-13; Non-Final Act. 15-25 (Aug. 2, 2018). ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Huang and Shear teaches or suggests “the content request message comprising information on requested content and information indicating a target geographical location” and “the response message indicating that the at least one user equipment possesses the requested content, and the at least one user equipment being located within the target geographical location in the content request message,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Obviousness Appellant argues that Huang teaches two different requests in which the first request (e.g., from a PC to a server) does contain a “location term” Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 4 but the second request (e.g., from a server to a mobile communication device) “does not contain any information indicating a target location area.” Appeal Br. 6 (citing Huang ¶¶ 30-31, Figs. 1-2). Instead, Appellant explains that Huang’s second request is only transmitted on a wireless network that “corresponds to the location term” in the first request. Id. Appellant further argues that “[i]n Shear, a user requests that pictures . . . of a particular location be collected in the future” and there is no user equipment that “both possesses (already) the requested content and is (already) in the target area.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing Shear ¶ 53). We agree with Appellant that certain past and future time frames might not meet the limitations of claim 1. For example, if a user equipment does not currently possess the requested content and merely intends to acquire such content in the future, then it is not true that the “user equipment possesses the requested content.” Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that the Specification discloses an embodiment in which “possesses” refers to using a camera “in real time” (i.e., the present): As illustrated in Fig. 1, since the user equipment 125 is located within the target geographical location, i.e., in the geographical area 132, and the user equipment is provided with a camera module to take and store a video of its surroundings in real time. Thus in the step S403, the user equipment 125 sends a response message to the server 110, the response message comprising information indicating that the user equipment 125 possesses the content requested by the server 110. Spec. 12:27-13:2. The Examiner correctly points out that Huang teaches “a first request information including a location term and a time term” where “[t]he time term could be the present time.” Huang ¶ 30. Huang also teaches “[t]he Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 5 data processing device 32 broadcasts the second request information, based on the time term.” Id. ¶ 31. For example, the time term of the transmitted first request information is “the present time” and the location term is “Taipei 101”. After the data processing device 32 receives the first request information, the data processing device 32 immediately (corresponding to the time term) broadcasts the second request information to the mobile communication device 34 having the positioning information conforming to the Taipei 101 (corresponding to the location term). Huang ¶ 31. The recipient devices can then respond and send captured audio or video data. Id. ¶¶ 32-33. Thus, Huang teaches or suggests “the content request message comprising information on requested content” and “the response message indicating that the at least one user equipment possesses the requested content [e.g., pictures or video at the present time], and the at least one user equipment being located within the target geographical location [e.g., Taipei 101].” The Examiner further cites Shear for teaching “the administrator [can] define an area (radius) about the production location, and can specify that only content providers located within the area can claim the assignment.” Shear ¶ 55; Ans. 5. This teaches or suggests “the at least one user equipment being located within the target geographical location in the content request message.” Whether alone or especially in combination with Huang’s “present time,” Appellant fails to persuade us that Shear is limited to “content at a future time” rather than, for example, a device already at a location with a camera for real-time pictures or video. See Reply Br. 4, 5, 7. We therefore are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant makes substantially identical arguments against the other independent claims (6, 11, and 13). Appeal Br. 8-15. Appeal 2020-005152 Application 15/915,177 6 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 13, and their dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 9, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 15-16; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Double Patenting Appellant does not address the double patenting rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, and 15. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13 103 Huang, Shear 1, 5-7, 9, 11, 13 2 103 Huang, Shear, Athsani 2 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15 Double patenting: US 9,949,066 B2 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15 TIME TO RESPOND No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.36(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED