Harman International Industries, Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 2021

2020002733 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021)

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. 14/998,382 12/23/2015 Richard Allen Kreifeldt HRMN/0144US 2013 98031 7590 05/04/2021 Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 EXAMINER GORDON, MATHEW FRANKLIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3665 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2021 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): bkistler@artegislaw.com jmatthews@artegislaw.com sjohnson@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte RICHARD ALLEN KREIFELDT __________ Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 Technology Center 3600 __________ Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Harman International Industries, Inc. Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) 3, filed Sept. 13, 2019. Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to a navigation system. Spec. ¶ 2. More specifically, the claimed subject matter relates to “techniques for determining an optimal destination for a user by learning and taking into account the user’s navigational preferences and based on user input specifying one or more geospatial commands.” Spec. ¶ 26. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are independent. Claim 20 is representative of the claimed subject matter and recites: 20. A method, comprising: receiving one or more geospatial commands; generating, by operation of one or more computer processors, a user-specific geospatial command model; identifying an affinity group model that corresponds to a group of users that share common characteristics with the user- specific geospatial command model; modifying the user-specific geospatial command model based on the affinity group model to generate a modified user- specific geospatial command model; generating a navigation query based on the one or more geospatial commands and using the modified user-specific geospatial command model; and executing the navigation query to determine route and destination information. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Golding (US 7,512,487 B1, issued Mar. 31, 2009) and Grosz (US 2017/0093967 A1, published Mar. 30, 2017). Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 3 Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17–192 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Golding, Grosz, and San Filippo (US 2014/0278086 A1, published Sept. 18, 2014). Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Golding, Grosz, and Leader (US 2013/0345961 A1, published Dec. 26, 2013). ANALYSIS Obviousness of over Golding and Grosz Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 20 Claim 20 recites a method including the steps of “identifying an affinity group model that corresponds to a group of users that share common characteristics with the user-specific geospatial command model; [and] modifying the user-specific geospatial command model based on the affinity group model to generate a modified user-specific geospatial command model.” Appeal Br. 21 (Claims App.). Independent claims 1 and 12 recite performance of similar steps by a processor. See id. at 17, 19. The Examiner looks to the teachings of either Golding or Grosz, or both, for these limitations. Final Act. 2, 7; Ans. 3–5.3 We first address the Golding reference. Golding describes a method for generating navigational directions for use while driving a car. Golding 2 The Examiner includes claim 16 in the heading of the rejection. Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) 8, dated Feb. 6, 2019. However, claim 16 is not discussed in the body of the rejection. See id. at 8–15. We consider this an inadvertent typographical error. 3 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), dated Jan. 16, 2020. Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 4 2:6–8. The method includes the step of computing a score for each candidate route of a set of candidate routes generated in response to a route request received from a user. Id. at 2:8–14. The score for each candidate route is computed based on one or more attribute models (id.), which may include an attribute model for each driver of the car (id. at 4:22–24). Based on these teachings, the Examiner finds that Golding discloses the steps of “identifying an affinity group model that corresponds to a group of users that share common characteristics with the user-specific geospatial command model; [and] modifying the user-specific geospatial command model based on the affinity group model to generate a modified user-specific geospatial command model,” as recited in claim 20. Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds that “Golding discloses determining which user [is] operating a vehicle, out of a group of different drivers of the same vehicle, and modifies the candidate routes provided based on which driver is operating the vehicle.” Id. The Examiner also finds that: Golding discloses generating a set of candidate routes, where the routes are modified based on which user is operating the vehicle. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize Golding [as] disclosing modifying the routes presented based on which user, out of a group [of] users, is operating the vehicle corresponds to techniques in which a user-specific model is modified based on an affinity group model. Id.; see also Final Act. 2. The Examiner’s findings are not persuasive for the following reasons. As an initial matter, we note that the Specification describes that the recited geospatial command model “represents the user-specific intent of geospatial commands.” Spec. ¶ 26. Elsewhere, the Specification describes that “the navigation component 115 [of the navigation system] can generally maintain Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 5 a geospatial command model for the user 120 which represents the user’s intended meaning for various geospatial commands.” Id. ¶ 18. Here, Appellant correctly points out that “the candidate routes disclosed in Golding are simply possible routes that a vehicle can take from point A to point B, which are not user-specific” and “[u]nlike the claimed user-specific geospatial command models, nowhere does Golding identify any single candidate route, or any set of candidate routes, as being a [user- specific] model.” See Reply Br. 3–4;4 see also Golding 9:19–22. As such, we agree with Appellant that “the candidate routes disclosed in Golding are not [user-specific models] and therefore cannot be properly equated to the user-specific geospatial command model recited in [the] claims.” Reply Br. 4. We also agree with Appellant that “the [claimed] affinity group model corresponds to a group of users that share common characteristics with a user-specific geospatial command model, whereas each of the attribute models disclosed in Golding and cited by the Examiner [are] specific to a single user operating a vehicle.” Reply Br. 4 (citing Ans. 3–4, which cites Golding 4:23–25); see also Appeal Br. 12. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that the teachings of Golding do not support the Examiner’s finding that Golding suggests the recited steps of “identifying an affinity group model that corresponds to a group of users that share common characteristics with a user-specific geospatial command model, and modifying the user-specific geospatial command model based on the affinity group model to generate a modified user-specific geospatial command 4 Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed Feb. 20, 2020. Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 6 model.” See Reply Br. 3–5; see also Appeal Br. 12; Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3– 4. We now address the Grosz reference. Grosz describes a “method . . . for intelligently and automatically grouping individuals into groups for the purpose of participating in activities.” Grosz ¶ 10. Such groupings are based on personal profiles associated with users of a system implementing the method. Id. ¶¶ 24, 450–452. For example, Grosz teaches that a system implementing the method may permit a user to configure one or more special conditions, which, if met by a particular activity, trigger notification or automated enrollment in the activity. Id. ¶¶ 332, 335. Alternatively, Grosz teaches that the system may permit a user to “follow” another user by configuring one or more special conditions to automatically enroll the user in any activity in which the other user participates. Id. ¶ 341. Likewise, “conditions may be set on certain gender ratios, certain attendance numbers, education level, and other user or group profile attributes.” Id. ¶ 342. Based on these teachings, the Examiner finds that Grosz “disclose[s] a user specific model being modified based on an affinity group model that shares common characteristics with the user specific model.” Final Act. 3; see also id. at 7. Based on this finding, the Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan “to combine the teachings of Grosz with the system disclosed by Golding in order to intelligently and automatically group individuals into groups, allow both groups to interact, and modify the groups as needed.” Final Act. 7. The Examiner’s findings are not persuasive for the following reasons. First, Appellant correctly points out that “Grosz only discloses that user and group activity profiles can be compared to determine whether a match Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 7 exists”; however, “Grosz does not teach that any user profile is modified based on a group activity profile.” Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Grosz ¶¶ 450–452. Second, Appellant also correctly points out that neither the setting of “special conditions” nor the automatic assigning of users to group activities based on those “special conditions,” as described in Grosz, “involves modifying one model based on another model, let alone modifying a user-specific geospatial command model based on an affinity group model to generate a modified user-specific geospatial command model.” Appeal Br. 14; see also Grosz ¶¶ 335, 337–45, 353–56. Consequently, we agree with Appellant that the teachings of Grosz do not support the Examiner’s finding that Grosz suggests modifying a personal profile based on a group activity profile, much less modifying a user-specific geospatial command model based on an affinity group model. Appeal Br. 13. For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 20 as unpatentable over Golding and Grosz. The Examiner presents similar findings for independent claims 1 and 12. See Final Act. 3–4, 5–6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, and 20 as unpatentable over Golding and Grosz. Obviousness of over Golding, Grosz, and San Filippo Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17–19 Claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11 depend ultimately from independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 17–19 (Claims App.). Claims 14, 15, and 17–19 depend ultimately from claim 12. Id. at 20–21. The Examiner cites San Filippo for various teachings addressing limitations explicitly added by the Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 8 rejected claims. See generally, Final Act. 8–15. The Examiner does not suggest that the teachings of San Filippo would remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Golding and Grosz as applied to independent claims 1 and 12. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 17–19 as unpatentable over Golding, Grosz, and San Filippo. Obviousness over Golding, Grosz, and Leader Claim 9 Claim 9 depends from independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 18–19 (Claims App.). The Examiner cites Leader for the teaching that a navigation system may present to a user a plurality of route and destination options, permitting the user to choose from among those options. Final Act. 15 (citing Leader ¶¶ 7–10). The Examiner does not suggest that the teachings of Leader would remedy the deficiencies in the combined teachings of Golding and Grosz as applied to independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as unpatentable over Golding, Grosz, and Leader. Appeal 2020-002733 Application 14/998,382 9 CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 20 103 Golding, Grosz 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 13, 16, 20 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17–19 103 Golding, Grosz, San Filippo 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17–19 9 103 Golding, Grosz, Leader 9 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED