Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2022

2020005913 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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. 15/142,984 04/29/2016 Adam Fourney 359492-US- NP(1777.246US1) 6373 144365 7590 01/03/2022 Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. P.O. Box 2938 Minneapolis, MN 55402 EXAMINER JAMI, HARES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2162 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2022 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): SLW@blackhillsip.com usdocket@microsoft.com uspto@slwip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ADAM FOURNEY and SUSAN T. DUMAIS Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 Technology Center 2100 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 7. See Final Act. 2. The Examiner has found claims 8, 9, 11-14, and 16-19 to contain allowable 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”) and Reply Brief filed August 14, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Final Office Action mailed October 31, 2019 (“Final Act.”) and Answer mailed June 15, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed April 29, 2016 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. 2 “Appellant” herein refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 2 subject matter. Id. at 2, 7. Claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 15, and 20 have been cancelled. Id. at 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The subject matter of the present application pertains to techniques for “performing automatic identification and contextual reformulation of implicit device-related queries.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1 is independent. Claims 2, 4, and 7 each depend directly from claim 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising: receiving a query from an electronic device, the query comprising an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received, without providing any information about a model or operating platform of the electronic device; receiving, from the electronic device, data associated with the electronic device, the data comprising at least one of a model name or a name of the operating platform of the electronic device; determining, based on the indicator phrase included in the query, that the query is related to the electronic device from which the query is received; generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 3 of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device; retrieving results related to the new query; and sending, to the electronic device, the results related to the new query. Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.) (emphases added). REJECTION The Examiner relies on the following references: Designation3 Reference Date Dumais US 2011/0264656 Al Oct. 27, 2011 Haverlock US 2016/0125096 Al Oct. 31, 2014 Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of Dumais and Haverlock. Final Act. 4. ISSUE4 The issue presented by Appellant’s contentions is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests “receiving a query from an electronic device, the query comprising an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received” and “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query 3 All citations herein to the prior art are by reference to the first named inventor only. 4 Appellant’s arguments raise additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 4 with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Dumais teaches or suggests “receiving a query from an electronic device.” Final Act. 4 (citing Dumais ¶ 22, Fig. 4). The Examiner finds that Dumais does not disclose “the query comprising an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received” and “determining, based on the indicator phrase in the query that the query is related to the electronic device, from which the query is received.” Id. at 5. For these limitations, the Examiner additionally relies on Haverlock to find that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests the limitations. Id. at 5 (citing Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1). The Examiner also finds that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. Id. at 5-6 (citing Dumais ¶¶ 25, 26, 35, 67; Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1). Appellant argues that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock, as described by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest “the query comprising an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received” and “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 5 electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7-12; Reply Br. 2-4. For the reasons described below, we agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Haverlock teaches “a query such as ‘how do I charge my phone?’” Final Act. 5 (citing Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, “Haverlock discloses a technical support webpage in which users submit their queries such as ‘How do I charge my phone?’ or ‘How can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi?’” Ans. 7 (emphasis added) (citing Haverlock ¶ 19). The Examiner states that “[t]he query comprises an indicator phrase (my ‘phone’) in the query [which] refers to a mobile device” and that “[t]he terms ‘phone’ or ‘device’ used in the query determines that the query is related to an electronic device.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis added); Ans. 7, 9 (“the phrases ‘my phone’ and ‘my device’ used in queries of Haverlock are ‘indicator phrases’ that determine the queries are related electronic devices” (emphases added)). Thus, the Examiner finds Haverlock teaches “a query includ[ing] an indicator related to an electronic device.” Final Act. 6 (citing Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1). According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Dumais with Haverlock’s teaching in order to include in the query an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received . . . and determining, based on the indicator phrase in the query that the query is related to the electronic device, from which the query is received.” Id. at 5. The Examiner further finds that Dumais teaches “generating a new query by modifying (e.g.[,] replacing) the query terms with contextual data” and “[t]he context data includes information related to the type of device.” Final Act. 6 (citing Dumais ¶¶ 25, 26, 35, 67); Ans. 5. The Examiner Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 6 additionally finds that Haverlock discloses “determining that a query includes an indicator related to an electronic device.” Final Act. 6 (citing Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1). Thus, the Examiner finds that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock discloses or at least suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art the feature of generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device by at least replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least the model name or the operating platform of the electronic device. Id. (italicized emphases added); Ans. 9-10. Figure 1 of Haverlock relied upon by the Examiner is reproduced below. Figure 1 is a conceptual diagram illustrating a query selection system that uses contextual information in the operation of a Question and Answering (QA) system. Haverlock ¶ 5. Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 7 Figure 1 describes a user at client device 120 accessing a phone support website at “http://www.phonesupport.com.” Id. ¶ 12. Haverlock further describes that when the user enters a query “how do I” or “how do I charge my device” on the webpage, QA system 100 receives the user query along with the URL “http://www.phonesupport.com” of the webpage displayed on client device 120. Id. ¶¶ 16-17. The QA system then retrieves a list of four queries (query list 112) “associated with the web page ‘www.phonesupport.com’” from query database 104 using the webpage URL “http://www.phonesupport.com.” Id. ¶¶ 17-18. As shown in Figure 1, the queries (shown in query list 112) retrieved by the QA system based on the webpage URL are: “How do I charge my phone?”; “How do I cancel my contract?”; “How can I connect phone to Wi-Fi”; and “How do I turn off cellular data?” These queries are then sent to the client browser for presentation (webpage state 101b in Figure 1). Id. ¶ 19, Fig. 1. Thus, contrary to the Examiner’s finding (Final Act. 5; Ans. 7), Haverlock’s queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi” are not received from a user or client device 120; rather, they are queries (in query list 112) obtained or generated at QA system/ server 100 by retrieving them from query database 104. Haverlock ¶¶ 18-19, Fig. 1. The retrieved queries are then sent to the client device for display to the user. Id. ¶ 19, Fig. 1. Accordingly, we disagree with the Examiner that Haverlock’s queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi” are queries received from a user or the client device. Instead, they are new queries generated by the QA system based on the query “how do I” or “how do I charge my device” received from the client device. Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 8 We also disagree with the Examiner that the phrase “my phone” or “my device” is “an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 8-9. As discussed above, in Haverlock, when the QA system receives a query “how do I” or “how do I charge my device,” the new or modified queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi” are retrieved from query database 104 because they are determined to be “associated with the webpage ‘www. phonesupport.com’” based on the webpage URL received from the user or the client device, not based on the phrase “my device” included in the received query. See Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 18, 19. The Examiner does not identify, nor do we discern, any teaching or suggestion in Haverlock that the phrase “my device” in the query received from the client device “indicates” that the query “how do I charge my device” “relates to the electronic device” from which the query is received, i.e., client device 120.5 As for the phrases “phone” or “my phone” included in the queries retrieved from the query database, the retrieved queries are identified because they are determined to be “associated with” the webpage URL 5 As the issue is not before us, we take no position as to whether the webpage URL received from the user or the client device along with the received query teaches or suggests “an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received” recited in claim 1. See MPEP § 1213.02 (“The Board’s primary role is to review the adverse decision as presented by the Examiner, and not to conduct its own separate examination of the claims. Further, since the exercise of authority [for issuing a new grounds of rejection] under 37 CFR 41.50(b) is discretionary, no inference should be drawn from a failure to exercise that discretion.”). Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 9 “http://www.phonesupport.com,” not because the phrases “phone” or “my phone” are related to the electronic device from which the queries are received, i.e., the QA system or the database server. Id. ¶¶ 18, 19 (emphasis added). The Examiner does not identify, nor do we discern, any teaching or suggestion in Haverlock that the phrase “phone” or “my phone” included in the new queries retrieved from the query database “indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received,” i.e., the QA system or the database server. Accordingly, we determine Haverlock does not teach or suggest “an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received.” The Examiner does not rely on Dumais for the recited “indicator phrase” limitation. Final Act. 5. Thus, this limitation of claim 1 is missing from both Dumais and Haverlock. Although the Examiner relies on the combination of Dumais and Haverlock, the Examiner does not explain adequately how the proffered combination teaches or suggests the limitation “an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received” missing from both references. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 9-10. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner does not establish that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests “an indicator phrase that indicates that the query relates to the electronic device from which the query is received,” as recited in claim 1. As discussed above, the Examiner relies on Dumais as teaching “generating a new query by modifying (e.g. replacing) the query terms with contextual data” and “[t]he context data includes information related to the type of device” (Final Act. 6 (citing Dumais ¶¶ 25, 26, 35, 67); Ans. 5) and Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 10 further relies on Haverlock as disclosing “determining that a query includes an indicator related to an electronic device” (Final Act. 6 (citing Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19, Fig. 1)) to find that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests to a person of ordinary skill in the art the feature of “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. Id. (emphases added); Ans. 9-10. Because the combination of Dumais and Haverlock does not teach or suggest the recited “indicator phrase,” the proffered combination also does not teach or suggest “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, we determine that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock does not teach or suggest “generating a new query . . . by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device.” As discussed above, Haverlock’s queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi” cited by the Examiner are new queries generated by the QA system based on the query “how do I” or “how do I charge my device” and the webpage URL “http://www.phonesupport. com” received from the client device. See Haverlock ¶¶ 16, 19. The Examiner does not cite, nor do we discern, any teaching or suggestion in Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 11 Haverlock that the new queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi” are generated by replacing any phrase in the received query with “a model name or a name of the operating platform of the electronic device” from which the user query is received, i.e., client device 120. In other words, there simply is no hint or suggestion that Haverlock contemplates using “a model name or a name of the operating platform of the electronic device” from which the user query is received- i.e., the model name or the name of the operating platform of client device 120-to generate new queries “how do I charge my phone” and “how can I connect my phone to Wi-Fi.” Thus, even if we were to assume, arguendo, that Dumais teaches or suggests “receiving, from the electronic device, data associated with the electronic device, the data comprising at least one of a model name or a name of the operating platform of the electronic device” (Final Act. 4 (emphasis added) (citing Dumais ¶¶ 22, 35)) and “generating a new query by modifying (e.g. replacing) the query terms with contextual data” where “[t]he context data includes information related to the type of device” (id. at 6 (citing Dumais ¶¶ 25, 26, 35, and 67)), the Examiner does not explain adequately how the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests “generating a new query . . . by replacing the indicator phrase within the query with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we determine the Examiner does not establish that the combination of Dumais and Haverlock teaches or suggests “generating a new query based at least in part on the query and the data associated with the electronic device at least by replacing the indicator phrase within the query Appeal 2020-005913 Application 15/142,984 12 with at least one of the model name or the name of the operating platform of the electronic device,” as recited in claim 1. In sum, we agree the Examiner erred, and, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 or the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4, and 7. CONCLUSION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4, and 7 is reversed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 7 103 Dumais, Haverlock 1, 2, 4, 7 REVERSED