DISCUSSING PTAB JUDGEMENT #001

Appeal 2020-006594

Application 15/472,580

Technology Centre 3600

Applicant: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Date of Decision: 19th July 2021

Judges: Scoot B. Howard, Joyce Craig and Matthew J. McNeill (Administrative Patent Judges)

Jurisdiction under which appellant is approaching USPTO:

35 U.S.C. § 134(a) [If the claims of the applicant are rejected twice, then the applicant can appeal to the decision of the primary examiner to the PTAB after the payment of the appeal fee]

Title of the Invention:

A Space Optimization Solver Using Team Collaboration Pattern To Guide Team-To-Floor Allocation Planning

Understanding the invention:

Office spaces can sometimes become very complicated. It has been seen in various studies also that have a well-organized office space always have a positive impact on the employee. This positive impact can help in getting better yield from the employee. This invention helps determine where a division or team should be seated and which all teams should sit close by depending on the amount of collaborative work they perform. This invention provides a space optimization tool that uses the team collaboration pattern to guide team-to-location allocation planning. The tool collects the data to understand the employee’s communication pattern, such as how frequently one team communicates with others. This data can then be used to provide optimized space allocation for a particular team in an office.

Claimed Subject Matter:

The present invention claims are directed towards “a space optimization solver using team collaboration patterns to guide team-to-floor allocating pattern”.

Claim 8:

A space optimization system comprising:

a memory;

one or more processors;

a data storage device having stored thereon floor plans and traffic patterns between buildings;

an interaction module, under control of the one or more processors, to:

identify interactions between members of multiple teams within an organization,

 wherein the interactions include multiple different types of interactions each associated with differing weights; and

determine, based on the interactions between the members of the multiple teams within the organization, an interaction matrix that represents a weighted number of interactions between each of the multiple teams;

a location layout module, under the control of the one or more processor, to estimate travel times between the multiple teams within the organization, wherein the travel times are based on the floor plans and traffic patterns between buildings retrieved from the data storage device;

a travel module, under control of the one or more processors, to create a travel matrix based on the travel times between the multiple teams during the interactions of the members of the multiple teams; and

an optimization module, under control of the one or more processors, to generate a smart location plan identifying how the multiple teams should be physically located within the organization, wherein the smart location plan is generated, at least in part, by solving an optimization problem that minimizes an objective function based on the interaction matrix and the travel matrix subject to one or more constraints.

Examiner’s analysis:

The examiner rejected the claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed towards a patent-ineligible subject matter.

Principles of Law:

Before proceeding to analyze claims, we must understand the principle of law for computer-related/implemented inventions. According to 35 U.S.C. § 101, any invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter”. The Hon’ble U.S. Supreme Court has long settled it in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) that claims which is directed towards “law of nature, natural phenomena and abstract idea” are not patentable. This way, the U.S. Supreme Court created a separate excluded category.

The court also provided the 2-part framework (called the two-prong test) for identifying whether the claimed subject matter lies in the excluded category. According to this framework:

1.    First, determine the concept to which these claims are “directed to”. Now, if the claims are directed towards an abstract idea, then we proceed to step two. (Step 2A, Prong One)

2.    Now examine the elements in the claims to ascertain whether they contain an “inventive concept” sufficient in transforming the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. (Step 2A, Prong Two)

Fast-forwarding to 2019, USPTO under MPEP 2106 updated the guidelines in the application of § 101. According to the updated guidelines, we first look at the claims to determine whether the claims recite (Step 2B):

1.    Any judicial exception;

2.    Any additional element that can integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.

Now, if the claims recite a judicial exception but fail to provide any additional element, then we move on to the next step to determine whether the claim:

3.    Adds any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood” in the field; or

4.    Simply appends well-understood activity which is well known in the field.

Analyzing the above principle of law to the present invention:

The examiner in office Actions determined that the above-mentioned claim 8 recites a certain method of organizing and reorganizing the employees or persons based on their interaction, which is an abstract idea. This method was very well recited in claim 1 of the present invention, which is illustrated below:

Part of Claim 1:

identifying interactions between members of multiple teams within the organization, wherein the interactions include multiple different types of interactions each associated with differing weights;

determining, based on the interactions between the members of the multiple teams within the organization, an interaction matrix that represents a weighted number of interactions between each of the multiple teams;

estimating travel times between the multiple teams within the organization, wherein the travel times are based on floor plans and traffic patterns between buildings;

creating a travel matrix based on the travel times between the multiple teams during the interactions of the members of the multiple teams; and

generating a smart location plan identifying how the multiple teams should be physically located within the organization, wherein the smart location plan is generated, at least in part, by solving an optimization problem that minimizes an objective function based on the interaction matrix and the travel matrix subject to one or more constraints,

These steps recited in claim 1 are performed by the various modules mentioned in claim 8 of the present invention, as we saw before. The examiner argued that these steps of the abstract idea could be performed mentally, thus amounts to an abstract mental process. According to the judgement by the Hon’ble Federal Circuit Court in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F. 3d 1307, 1318, a mental process includes those acts which people can perform in minds or using pen and paper, even if the recited claim is performed using generic computer components.

Since the claims are directed to a judicial exception, we must find additional elements to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. These additional elements can be claim features, limitations or steps that the claims recite beyond the identified judicial exceptions. In claim 8, these additional elements are “a space optimization system”, “a memory”, “one or more processors”, “a data storage device”, “a location layout module”, “an interaction module”, “a travel module”, and “an optimization module”. For integrating the judicial exceptions into the practical application, the requirement is that these additional elements must improve the functioning of the technology or computer or technical field. None of the additional elements was sufficient for integrating the judicial exception into a practical application in the present invention.

Since the claims failed to recite any additional elements capable of integrating the judicial exception into the practical application, we move to the next step of the test to determine what the additional element adds to the claim. As discussed earlier, these additional elements/features must be more than the well understood or conventional activity. If they are directed to any such additional element, the claims can be rendered eligible for patenting even if they are directed towards an abstract idea.

The applicant failed to satisfy the board that claim 8 was not directed towards the judicial exception and failed to satisfy that the claim contains any additional element for integrating the judicial exception into practical application.

The board affirmed the examiner’s decision of rejecting claims 1-20.