Author Archive

Shared event gallery: non-technical

This decision concerns an invention in the field of exchanging electronic messages in a computer network and more particularly to a geo-location based gallery of messages associated with an event. Since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0984/20 (Shared event gallery / SNAP) of July 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Associating a geo-location fence with an event at some location, instead of the location itself, is purely a matter of labelling having no influence on a system’s technical functionality.

The invention

The subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision is summarized as follows in the decision:

2.1 The invention concerns a social network application enabling users that are participating in a common event (paragraph [0003]) to post content (e.g. a photograph – Figure 4 and paragraph [20]) to a shared “event gallery” (Figure 8 and paragraph [21]).

2.2 The invention according to claim 1 of the main request essentially allows a user who is close to an event to receive an indication of the event’s gallery (claim 1, fifth and sixth features), and then be added as a follower of the event and access the event gallery (seventh feature) and also to post content to the event gallery (last feature).

Fig. 8 of EP 3 155 565 A1

  • Claim 1 of the main request

Is it technical?

The Board decided to start from document D4 which discloses not only the first part of the claim, but also some features of its second part, thus avoiding the discussion of these features’ technicality.

The Board found that claim 1 of the main request differs from D4 in the following features (A, B, C and D) and elaborates on each feature as follows:

A) The geo-location fence and gallery are associated with an event;

3.6 Distinguishing feature A does not produce any technical effect, as associating the geo-location fence with an event at some location, instead of the location itself, is purely a matter of labelling having no influence on the system’s technical functionality. Contrary to the appellant’s view, the event’s time is not used in the claim for filtering content, granting access to the gallery or for any other purpose.

B) In addition to the shared gallery information, the user device presets a list of users to which the user sends messages, called “destination list”.

C) The user selects the shared gallery information before posting content to it.

3.7 Concerning distinguishing feature B, displaying next to the map of Figure 6c, the list of users to which the user of the user device sent unspecified messages relates to the presentation of information as such and lacks technical character. As regards distinguishing feature C, it would have been obvious to enable the user to post content relating to a geo-fenced location shown on the map of Figure 6c while this map is selected on the screen.

D) Content posted from a device is added to the gallery if the geo-location data of the device falls within the geo-location fence associated with the gallery.

3.8 As regards to feature D, the Board cannot see any technical reason for limiting the area from which content may be posted.

Contrary to the appellant, this idea does not involve any technical considerations in the field of data filtering. The alleged effect of reducing spam is not credibly provided, as this would require examining posted content, rather than contributors’ locations.

At any rate, the Board disagrees with the appellant that, compared to D4, the claimed invention facilitates communication between users at the same location. The claim defines at best that two different users “communicate” by virtue of viewing and posting content to the shared gallery, but this is disclosed in D4. Limiting the posting area does not facilitate electronic communication.

In fact, given the appellant’s explanations, this idea appears to aim at fostering interactions among users being at some location, such as parents attending a school football match, in the appellant’s example. This is not a technical consideration, but rather an administrative or even a psychological one.

3.9 Thus, using the Comvik approach (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), the idea to accept only content posted from within geo-location fence associated with the gallery is given to the skilled person as a requirement specification to implement. Starting from D4 and facing the problem of implementing this requirement, it would have been obvious to use the user device’s geo-location data to filter content posted to a gallery shown on the selected interactive map.

The Board further judged that claim 1 of the first auxiliary request does not comply with the requirements of Article 84 EPC and that claim 1 of the second auxiliary request does not add anything inventive according to Article 56 EPC.

As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the main request and claim 1 of the first and second auxiliary requests lack an inventive step. Thus, the appeal was dismissed.

More information

The decision can be found here: T 0984/20 (Shared event gallery / SNAP) of July 12, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Mobile location-based task assignment: non-technical

This decision concerns an application that relates to the use of location-based services for assigning tasks to users. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0926/20 (Mobile location-based task assignment/AR CHECK) of March 21, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Assigning tasks sequentially based on users’ acceptance is inherently non-technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

The invention concerns the use of location-based services for assigning tasks to users, such as cleaning workers.

Conventional location-based services do not provide a dynamic presentation of data based on a user’s location, date/time and input – see third-to-last paragraph on page 1 of the published application.

According to the invention, when a user is present at a building or any other specific location, he receives cleaning tasks/instructions for that particular location (“location profile”), based on the current date, time, and his availability (“user profile”). In other words, the location-based service utilises both the user and location profile to determine which task should be assigned to the user.

The user can either accept or decline the assigned task, thereby updating the location profile, and allowing the remaining tasks to be assigned to other cleaning workers – see last three paragraphs on page 6 of the application.

Fig. 1 of EP 3 161 734 A1

  • Claim 1

Is it technical?

It is common ground that the invention in claim 1 is a “mixed-type invention” comprising both technical and non-technical features.

The Board essentially agrees that following features of claim 1 can be categorized as technical:

– a “server operably connectable to at least one mobile device and at least one further device” (step a));

– a “mobile device comprising a location determining unit for determining a current location of the mobile device” (step c));

– the mobile device is able to communicate with the server and comprises input means (as in step g)) and output means, i.e. a display, audio and haptic output (as in step f)).

However, the Board believes that

[…] the features distinguishing claim 1 from this closest prior art pertain to non-technical, administrative aspects of the location-based service, namely those relating to the assignment of tasks to users.

The Appellant brought forward the following arguments:

Argument 1:

[…] the use of “time” in the location-based service is a crucial technical parameter, as it linked the user and location profiles.

Argument 2:

[…] claim 1 is not simply a digital version of a traditional paper-based task assignment process.

Argument 3:

[…] one inventive aspect was that the location-based service depended on the actions of other users, specifically, whether or not they accepted a given task.

The Board’s responses to the Appellants arguments were as follows:

Response Argument 1:

[…] the term “time” as used in the claim, refers to its ordinary meaning of organising tasks based on the availability of users.

Response Argument 2: The Board provided several reasons for this argument to be void.

Firstly, assigning tasks sequentially based on users’ acceptance is inherent to the non-technical, administrative concept.

Secondly, broadcasting tasks to all users contradicts the idea of using profiles, which is to select those users who, based on their profile or availability, can potentially accept a task. This is the opposite of selecting all users, regardless of their availability, for example in the case of firefighters responding to a fire alarm.

Additionally, from a technical perspective, broadcasting data in the context of location-based services is not practical because data should only be provided to users at a specific location (and time), not to all users of the service.

Therefore, […] any potential technical effect resulting from the underlying administrative concept, such as a reduction in network traffic, is a mere bonus effect not achieved by specific technical means and, hence, does not contribute to inventive step.

Response Argument 3:

This argument fails as claim 1 mostly defines an administrative concept that is given to the skilled person for implementation.

In summary, the distinguishing features of the invention are found to be non-technical and can thus not be considered when assessing inventive step, regardless of their novelty or innovation.

As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 lacks an inventive step. Thus, the appeal is dismissed.

More information

The decision can be found here: T 0926/20 (Mobile location-based task assignment/AR CHECK) of March 21, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Proximity-dependent reminders: non-technical

This decision concerns an application that relates to proximity-dependent reminders for wireless devices. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1369/20 (Proximity-dependent reminders/BLACKBERRY) of December 06, 2022 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Using a proximity-dependent reminder for populating a time-based appointment or meeting, and then deleting it is a business idea and thus not technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

Calendar applications normally store and remind a user about meetings and appointments at specific times, called “time-dependent events” in the application. The invention concerns a new feature for a mobile calendar application which enables the user to define an event that is triggered when a specified second user gets close enough to the first user to discuss some subject, called “proximity-dependent event”. Various details entered about the proximity-dependent event can be subsequently automatically copied into a conventional time-based calendar event (original application, [29] to [31]).

Looking at Figure 7, the proximity-dependent event, created by the first user, includes an ID field indicating the unique signature of the second user’s portable device ([26]) and a subject field indicating the issue to be discussed ([29], last sentence).

Once the proximity-dependent event has been created, the first user’s portable device determines automatically whether the second portable device is close to it, and if so, it notifies the user, see [27]. In an embodiment claimed by the eighth auxiliary request, the second portable device is detected using ultra wideband range radio technology ([16], [27] and [40]).

Having met with the second user, the calendar application enables the first user to create a time-based follow-up event if there is a need for further action or discussion on the subject ([30]). This can be a meeting with the second user or an appointment which does not require the presence of the second user ([31] and [33]). The calendar application automatically copies the proximity-dependent reminder’s subject to the time-based reminder and, in the case of a meeting, it sets the second user as the attendee ([31] and [34]). Having populated the time-based reminder with all required information, the calendar application saves it and deletes the proximity-dependent reminder ([35]).

Fig. 10 of EP 2 000 961 A1

  • Claim 1 (Eighth Auxiliary Request)

Is it technical?

The appellant argued that there were further distinguishing features which the examining division overlooked, namely:

  1. Time-dependent events and
  2. Proximity-dependent reminders, especially involving two users, as opposed to location-dependent reminders

The appellant further described the technical effect of the distinguishing features as follows:

The automatic population of the time-dependent events reduced the required user input and, therefore, saved computing resources and battery power. It also cut down wear and tear of the user’s portable device.

The display of the second user’s calendar to the first user provided the technical advantage that the first user did not disturb the second one unnecessarily.

However, the Board does not seem convinced and instead agreed with the examining division (decision, point 12.2.5):

4.5 […] Using a proximity-dependent reminder for populating a time-based appointment or meeting, and then deleting it is a business idea. Using the COMVIK approach (see decision T 641/00), this idea is given to the skilled person as a requirement specification to implement. The distinguishing features follow directly from this requirement specification.

4.6 Incidentally, providing a reminder upon establishing that the user is close to another user is also a non-technical feature. Thus, even if it were novel over D1, it would still have been obvious for the same reasons as features A to C. Furthermore, it does not really matter whether the calendar application of D1 supports time-dependent events or not. Since the requirement specification dictates that the time-dependent events should be created, the skilled person would have arrived at the claimed invention either way.

The Board further underlines this point as follows:

4.7 Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the reduction of user input does not seem to be achieved over D1. In fact, due to the creation of time-dependent reminders, the claimed calendar application uses more computing resources than the one according to D1 which does not create such reminders. Furthermore, even assuming that this effect were provided, it would not result from technical considerations, but rather from the above-mentioned non-technical requirement that is given to the skilled person to implement for non-technical reasons. Thus, it would be at most a bonus effect which does not confer technical character upon the business idea set out in point 4.5 above (see Case Law of the Boards of Appeal, 10th ed., 2022, 1.D.10.8).

As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 of the eighth auxiliary request lacks an inventive step and that none of the other requests are allowable. Thus, the appeal must be dismissed.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2879/18 (Proximity-dependent reminders/BLACKBERRY) of December 06, 2022.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Controlling information flow: non-technical

This decision concerns a system for controlling and optimizing information distribution between users in an information exchange. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1369/20 (Controlling information flow/MCFADDEN) of October 27, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Whether or not to send a particular message via an electronic communication network is not necessarily a technical decision.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The invention in claim 1 of this request concerns a method for determining whether to include an information item into an information stream in an information exchange. This could be, for example, a football score in a news feed, but, of course, the claim covers many other possibilities. The news item comprises contents, for example “Manchester City 2 – Nottingham Forest 0”, and a meta description comprising hierarchical data used to describe the content (for example, “Football” – “English Football” – “English Premier League”). The information exchange is a portal or service that facilitates the flow of information items to a consumer.

2.2 Claim 1 refers to a “participation metric” which is a measure of information item consumption or interaction with the information item by the consumer. In the oral proceedings, the appellant explained that this was based on historical data about previous items delivered to the consumer. What news articles were consumed? Did the consumer click on the link? Was there some other action indicating that they had read the story?

Further down in claim 1, there is a “participation prediction mapping” process which relates an “expected item value” to a “predicted participation level”. According to the appellant, this means that there is a statistical relation connecting the metadata with participation, for example a ratio – the number of times the consumer had the chance to interact with a category (English football scores) to the times they actually interacted with it. In other words, the “item value” in claim 1 is a statistical relation between the metadata and the participation metric, and it is used to predict the participation level of an information item that has not been seen yet. It could be seen as a score. If the consumer likes English football, the metadata “English football” will have a high item value. This means that the predicted participation of an unseen English football score (having metadata “English football” with a high item value) will be high.

The method further comprises obtaining a distribution of information items over a two dimensional range of priorities. This can be explained with reference to Figure 8. The distribution is a frequency distribution of the number of items per time unit for each point on that graph. Each item has an item value (priority) between -1 and 1 for the user and, though not in the claim, also an item value for the producer. Those values will be used to place the items in the grid in Figure 8. For example, “English football” has a high item value for the consumer and also a high value for the producer and will be placed in the upper right corner of the graph.

The next step in the method is to, for a region of the distribution of information items:

(a) compute a number of information items over the region of the distribution,

(b) compute a specified expected item value over the region of the distribution,

(c) evaluate the predicted participation level from the participation prediction mapping for the specified expected item value to determine where the predicted participation level for the specified item value is approximately equal to the number of information items in the region or where the predicted participation level from the participation prediction map is less than the number of items; and

select an include region of the distribution as the region where the predicted participation level for the specified item value is approximately equal to the number of information items in the region.

In other words, the algorithm is looking for a region where the predicted participation for the items of the region is approximately equal to the number of items in the region. The aim is to choose a number of items that matches the user’s participation. If it is predicted that the user is going to consume 11 items, the algorithm chooses a region with 11 items.

These item are included in the information stream that is delivered to the consumer.

Fig. 1 of WO 2014/145365 A2

  • Claim 1 (Third Auxiliary Request)

Is it technical?

With regard to technical character, the Board came to following conclusion:

3.1 […] claim 1 implies some sort of computer system, and, therefore, the claimed subject-matter has technical character overall, and is not excluded under Article 52(2) and (3) EPC.

With regards to inventive step, the Board cited T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK and mentioned that the question is, consequently, to what extent the claimed method provides a technical effect. The Board further discussed:

4.2 The examining division considered that the claimed method related to data analysis with the goal of optimising information distribution. This was considered to be a mental act or a non-technical method of organising information. No technical effect could be identified. The motivation behind the invention did not constitute a technical problem as it did not involve any technical skills. Thus, starting from a notoriously known conventional networked computer as the “closest prior art”, the technical problem to be solved was how to implement the non-technical features on the known computer system. The implementation at the level of detail of claim 1, would, however, have been obvious for the skilled person.

In response, the appellant argued that:

4.3  […] the invention increased the efficiency of the information exchange system, because items that were not consumed were not sent, and, at the same time, the consumer was not given too few information items. This was a technical effect. Moreover, the control of the information flow took place automatically, without active involvement of the user. This was also technical. Furthermore, the regulation of information flow was triggered by bandwidth limitations and nothing else. Thus, the invention was based on technical considerations.

The Board was not convinced by the appellant’s arguments but rather agrees with the examining division. More specifically:

[…] the decision whether or not to include the information item into the information stream in claim 1 is not based on any technical parameters of the data network or computer system. It is rather based on the content of the message in view of the customer’s interests and priorities. The method gives the consumer as many information items as he is likely to consume. That is not a technical optimisation. It is an information optimisation.

It is clear that any message that is sent via an electronic communication network has an effect on network traffic. However, that does not mean that the decision whether or not to send a particular message is necessarily a technical one. There has to be a further technical effect going beyond the normal and inevitable effects of sending (or not sending) a message.

The same is true for the automation aspect. This is an effect of using a computer, which was known and obvious at the priority date.

As a result, the Board found that claim 1 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1369/20 (Controlling information flow/MCFADDEN) of October 27, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field

 

 

Ledger protocol to incentivise commerce: non-technical

This decision concerns a ledger protocol to incentivise commerce. However, since the distinguishing features were considered non-technical, the EPO refused to grant a patent. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1587/20 (Ledger protocol to incentivise commerce/LOYYAL HOLDINGS) of December 6, 2023 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Receiving information on business activities from a users’ computer and adding this information to a distributed ledger is non-technical.

The invention

The Board in charge summarized the subject-matter of the application underlying the present decision as follows:

2.1 The invention concerns a system for incentivising a user both to behave in a desired way and to purchase a particular product (see paragraphs [15], [22] and [29] of the published application).

2.2 The idea of the invention is to give users participating in an incentive program ([22], last sentence), rewards (“incentive units of value” in the claim), such as gift cards or coupons ([24]), to incentivise behaviour desired by the provider of the program. While not claimed, the behaviours might range from promoting some service on social media to attending a gym ([22] and [29]). The system achieves this by collecting data on the users’ behaviour (“incentive event data”) from either their computers or a POS or an ATM terminal ([35]). Then it records the reward on a distributed ledger and provides it to the users’ computers ([36]).

2.3 In a separate embodiment, see paragraph [55], lines 4 and 5, the invention associates a product with a digital wallet containing tokens and private keys, see [57]. The application explains that the tokens represent exchangeable units of value, such as cryptocurrency units, gift cards and coupons, see [56]. The digital wallet can receive tokens from a user which is not in possession of the product (“a first party that is not in possession of the product”) to incentivise a desired behaviour.

While not claimed, but disclosed in the application, the digital wallet is an incentive to purchase the product and becomes the property of its buyer. The subsequent token transfers are conducted by the product manufacturer to incentivise the product’s resale for example, see [57] and [62], last sentence.

Fig. 5 of WO 2016/007904 A1

  • Claim 1 (Sole Request)

Is it technical?

Before further deliberation, the Board noted several clarity objections present in claim 1. Notwithstanding, D1 was considered the closest prior art and the Board found that the subject-matter of claim 1 differs from D1 (distinguishing features) in that:

A) In that the tokens are added to the wallet in order to incentivise a desired behaviour.

B) By a server configured to provide access to incentive data issued or defined by the open assets protocol employed.

C) By receiving incentive event data from one or more of point of sale devices, credit/debit card machines and at least one incentive protocol network participant compute device.

D) In that the distributed ledger stores records based on the incentive event data and at least one incentive protocol system rule.

E) In that the amount of tokens transferred between users is based on the generated incentive unit transaction record

The Board provided following analysis with regards to the distinguishing features:

3.6 Feature A merely defines a user’s business motivation and makes no technical contribution. Feature B is, at the broad level claimed, an obvious implementation of the business requirement that some unspecified incentive data should be made available to users.

3.7 Features D and E correspond to distinguishing features (i) to (iv) according to point 13.4 of the decision. At point 13.8 of the decision, the examining division held that those features defined a business scheme and the Board agrees. The scheme requires that participating users’ behaviour is to be monitored, documented in the public ledger and used as basis for token transfers.

With regards to the distinguishing features, the Appellant argued as follows:

3.8 […] the distinguishing features provided the technical effect of enabling a party, who no longer had physical access to the product, to obtain historical and logistical information about it. For example, a product’s manufacturer could see that tokens were transferred in connection with the sale of his product. This effect was “over and above the effects and advantages inherent in the excluded subject-matter”, as discussed in decision T 336/07, and therefore gave rise to a technical problem and counted towards an inventive step (grounds of appeal, page 4, page 7, penultimate paragraph and page 8).

However, the Board did not follow the Appellants argumentation and provided following reasoning:

[…], as was essentially stated at point 13.12.3 of the decision, the advanced effect is not derivable from the claim which does not mention storing any product-related historical data, let alone storing data concerning the product associated with the digital wallet (see point 2.3 above). Neither does the claim define that information on transferred tokens is stored anywhere in the system.

3.9 The claimed implementation of the above business scheme (feature C) is limited to receiving the information on business activities from the users’ computers and to adding this information to the distributed ledger. The Board agrees with the examining division (decision, point 13.11) that these features would have been obvious, once, using the COMVIK approach (see decision T 641/00 – Two identities/COMVIK), the business scheme has been provided to the skilled person to implement for non-technical reasons.

As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 1 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1587/20 (Ledger protocol to incentivise commerce/LOYYAL HOLDINGS) of December 6, 2023.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy
* = Required field