PAYPAL, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 15, 2021

2020003923 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 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. 15/186,099 06/17/2016 Kamal Zamer 70481.772US02 (P1790US2) 7639 132906 7590 10/15/2021 Haynes & Boone, LLP (70481) 2323 Victory Ave. #700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER HALIM, SAHERA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2457 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/15/2021 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KAMAL ZAMER ____________________ Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 20. 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). According to Appellant, PAYPAL, INC., is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to providing location-based information via a social network for a plurality of first user devices within a predetermined proximity of a physical location, wherein least some of that location-based information about the physical location may then be displayed by second user device not at the location. Spec., Abstract ¶ 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 1. A system, comprising: non-transitory memory; and one or more hardware processors coupled to the non- transitory memory and configured to read instructions from the non-transitory memory to cause the system to perform operations comprising: receiving a plurality of user-generated content submissions over a communications network; determining that a first subset of the plurality of user- generated content submissions were received from at least one first user device that is located within a minimum proximity of a physical location and, in response, adding each of the first subset of the plurality of user-generated content submissions to a location-based information feed that includes only user-generated content submissions that are received from user devices that are located within the minimum proximity of the physical location; and providing the location-based information feed over the communications network for display on at least one second user device that is located outside the minimum proximity of the physical location. Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS 2 The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 20 on the ground of non- statutory, obviousness-type, double patenting, for being unpatentable over claims 1 through 20 of Zamer (U.S. Patent 9,407,709 B2, Aug. 2, 2016). Final Act. 11–14. The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Khan (US 2011/0238755 A1, Sep. 29, 2011). Final Act. 4–9. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 20 but has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s non-statutory, obviousness-type, double patenting rejection. Double Patenting Rejection Appellant argues on page 4 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s double patenting rejection should be held in abeyance pending resolution of 2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 19, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed May 1, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed July 8, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 3, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 4 the other rejections. As such, Appellant has not identified an error in the Examiner’s double patenting rejection and thus, we sustain it pro forma. Obviousness Rejection Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 7 and 14. Appeal Br. 6–9, Reply Br. 4–7. Appellant’s arguments present us with three issues. First issue. Appellant argues that Khan does not teach a location-based information feed that includes only user-generated content submissions from devices that are located within proximity of a physical location, rather Khan teaches providing a user with information based upon their proximity to other users. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant asserts that “informing one user that another user is nearby would not be properly characterized as the ‘user- generated content submissions’ recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s interpretation of user-generated content is too broad and that the skilled artisan would understand from the Specification that this is referring to content such as “posts” and “reviews.” Reply Br. 5. Thus, Appellant’s first point presents us with the first issue did the Examiner err in finding that Khan teaches user generated content from a user device located proximate a physical location. Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Regardless of whether the Examiner has applied an overly broad interpretation of the disputed limitation, we find that Khan teaches the user generated content applying the more narrow Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 5 interpretation applied by Appellant. Khan discusses that a user at a baseball stadium (a location) may associate items such as notes, files, photos, video, etc. (which are user content as they are posts generated by the user) to be shared with another user when they visit the stadium. Khan ¶ 106 (cited by Appellant in the Reply Br. 7). Second issue. Appellant additionally argues that Khan does not teach that the user generated content only includes content received from a device within proximity to the physical location. Appeal Br. 8. Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant argues that Khan teaches filtering information based upon the user proximity and does not teach the information feed includes only content that is received from devices proximate the location. Reply Br. 5. Appellant states: the currently pending claims capture an embodiment of the systems and methods of the present application in which “users must be physically located at the physical location to join its associated social network and provide location-based information, ensuring to other users that the location-based information about the physical location is timely and provided by users that are actually present at the physical location” Reply Br. 6. Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Examiner relies upon Khan paragraphs 26 and 68, which discuss filtering information such that the user only receives information related to the location. Final Act. 5, Ans. 17. Representative claim 1 recites determining that a first subset of content is Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 6 received from a device within proximity to a location and adding the content to a feed that includes only content from devices located in proximity of the location. We concur with the Examiner, Khan discusses in paragraph 68 filtering content based current location, which meet the claimed feature of determining of content is from devices in proximity to a location. Khan also provides an example of this in operation in paragraph 106 discussed above. We further note that Khan discusses the ability to adjust the scale of the proximity determination. See e.g. Khan ¶ 64. Thus, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Khan teaches that the user-generated content is only includes content within proximity to the physical location. Third issue. Appellant’s third point asserts that Khan does not teach providing a location-based information feed for display on at least one second user device that is located outside the minimum proximity of the physical location. Appeal Br. 8. Reply Br. 6–7. The Examiner, in the Final Action, cites to para 106 of Khan as teaching providing the location based information to a second user located outside the proximity of the location. Final Act 6, 9. Further, in the Answer, the Examiner states: Khan teaches providing location based information based on proximity and affinity (par. 0251 - 0254, when it is providing information based on affinity, it can provide information outside and inside the proximity of a location). Ans. 17. We have reviewed Khan’s teachings in the paragraphs cited by the Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 7 Examiner and disagree with the Examiner’s findings. Independent claim 1 recites providing the location based information (discussed above as being only from user devices located in proximity to a physical location), to a second device outside proximity to the physical location. Independent claims 7 and 14 recite similar limitations. Khan’s discussion in paragraph 106 is directed to a user, at a baseball stadium (i.e. at a specific location) sharing information with other users, when the other users visit the stadium (when they are also at the location). Thus, we do not see that paragraph 106 discusses sharing information with users outside proximity of the location as claimed. Further, as argued by Appellant on page 8 of the Reply Brief, the Examiner has provided minimal explanation as to how the teachings of paragraphs 251–254 teaches the disputed limitation. Paragraph 251 of Khan merely discusses retrieving information based upon affinity, and does not identify the information as including only location based information. Paragraph 252 of Khan discusses providing suggestions, not location based information, based upon a user’s predicted future location, and thus also does not discuss providing location based information to a user outside the location. Paragraphs 253 and 254 of Khan also do not discuss providing location based information to a user outside the location. As such the Examiner has not provided sufficient rationale or identified sufficient evidence to support the finding that Khan teaches or suggests the limitation of providing the claimed location based information to users outside proximity of the location, as is recited in independent claims 1, 7 and 14. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 20. Appeal 2020-003923 Application 15/186,099 8 CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20. Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Khan 1–20 1–20 103 Double Patenting, Zamer 1–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 AFFIRMED