Author Archive

Predictive Presentation: technical

The invention concerns predictively presenting, in the graphical user interface (GUI) of a computing device, specific “search capabilities” depending on the current location. While considered by the Examining Division as non-technical due to allegedly representing information based on administrative and personal constraints, the Board found that the application indeed provides a technical effect. Therefore, the decision was set aside and the case was remitted to the Examining Division for further prosecution. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1384/21 (Predictive search/GOOGLE LLC) of March 20, 2024 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Displaying interactive GUI elements that have an effect on the system functionality is technical.

Automatically adapting these GUI elements based on the location of the mobile device is thus also technical.

The invention

Different “whitelisted locations” may offer different search capabilities for users to obtain information. For example, in a museum the user may use the smartphone camera to recognise artwork, whereas in a shop the user may scan a barcode for “comparison shopping” (see paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0016] and [0030] of the published application). A search capability, also named “search type” in the application, may be a “visual search type” that uses optical sensor(s) to obtain image(s). For example, visual search types may be based on barcode scanning, image recognition or optical character recognition. Other search types may include audio and textual search types (paragraph [0031]). After determining that the current location matches a whitelisted location in a stored list of whitelisted locations, the computing device obtains the search types which are associated with the matched whitelisted location. The computing device then provides, in the GUI, a selectable GUI element, referred to as “indication”, for each of the obtained search types. When the user selects one of these indications, a search is performed based on the selected search type (paragraphs [0033],[0034] and [0041]).

Fig. 1 of WO 2014/089319 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D4 fails to disclose the following feature groups:

storing a plurality of whitelisted locations, associating one or more search types with each whitelisted location and determining that the geographic location of the mobile computing device matches one of the whitelisted locations;

obtaining the search types associated with the matched whitelisted location and responsive to obtaining the one or more search types, outputting a GUI comprising an indication for each of the search types associated with the matched whitelisted location.

As outlined above, the Examining Division found that these features concerned administrative and personal constraints and resulted in a different search method being performed based on the location. This was not a technical effect because it related merely to presentation of information.

The Appellant on the other hand argued that these features provided a UI which facilitated user selection of a search type (e.g., a camera for recognizing artwork in a museum or a barcode for comparison shopping in a store).

The Board did not follow the arguments of the Examining division and stated:

The “indication” for a search type is an interactive element of the GUI which offers a specific search function and is a technical feature (see also T 2028/11, Reasons 3.6). The board does not agree with the assessment of the decision under appeal that the distinguishing features […] relate only to presentation of information as such and that “[i]t is irrelevant from a technical standpoint which searches or search types are offered by a technical system, only the personal requirements of a user dictate such choices”.

Instead, the Board found that:

It is technically relevant that specific interactive elements are displayed, since the functionality of the system is determined by the interactive GUI elements displayed.

Furthermore, the Board argued that:

The distinguishing features […] are not determined by the subjective wishes of the user but result in the GUI being automatically adapted to the location of the mobile device in that the GUI provides the search functionality which is applicable to the location. This is a technical difference. The board agrees with the appellant that these distinguishing features facilitate the selection of a visual search type associated with the location of the mobile phone.

Since none of the other prior art documents either disclosed or suggested the claimed solution, the Board found the subject-matter of claim 1 of the main request to be inventive over the cited prior art.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1384/21 (Predictive search/GOOGLE LLC) of March 20, 2024.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Coupling of list items on a screen: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to the coupling of list items according to a pinch-out operation. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the non-technical task of coupling list items, which allegedly referred to a mere representation of information. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1042/122 (Coupling of list items/SONY) of February 29, 2024. of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.05:

Key takeaways

In the absence of a tangible and credible technical effect, ergonomic improvements with respect to GUI interactions relate to design improvements and are thus non-technical.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision provides a method for controlling the display of list item on a screen. Once a pinch-out operation is detected, elements of a sub-list are coupled to elements of a target list by gradually moving the sub-list closer to the target list. In contrast, when separating the lists, a new sub-list is created by arranging the list items gradually separated from the target list (cf. para. [0019] of the application). This way, a user is able to, before completion of the coupling/separation of lists, check in advance the list items to be coupled/separated (cf. para. [0020] of the application).

Fig. 1 of EP 2555104 A2

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D6 failed to disclose features 2.3, 2.4 and 4.

The Appellant argued that:

They enabled the user to recognize the list items to be inserted by the “coupling” before the completion of the “coupling of list items”.

Accordingly, the Appellant formulated the objective technical problem solved by these features as:

How to allow a user to perform “coupling of list items” in an easy, intuitive and time-saving manner.

Notably, the Appellant did not contest that the display of “animations” within the meaning of features 2.3 and 2.4 constitutes a “presentation of information“.

Instead, the Appellant referred to the decisions T 0336/14 and T 1802/13 and argued that the presentation of information at hand credibly assisted the user in performing a “technical task” by means of a continued and guided human-machine interaction process.

In view of the Appellant said technical task was about:

Controlling a device based on user input. In particular, the control of a device based on physical parameters such as the “amount of the pinch-out operation” and “thresholds” is a technical control operation. Furthermore, based on the “visual feedback” provided by the animations of features 2.3 and 2.4, the user has better control over the device and could, for example, “cancel the coupling of the lists” during the process and revert to the previous state without finishing the coupling
process.

Regarding feature 4, the Appellant further argued that it:

Eliminated the problem of the user having to reach a potentially hard-to-reach area of the display with their fingers.

However, the Board did nof follow these arguments and instead holds that:

The animations at hand have nothing to do with “controlling the display device”. Neither the animations displayed nor the user’s reaction to them are meant to “control” how the display technology behind the display device actually runs.

Instead, the “visual feedback” provided by the “animations” of features 2.3 and 2.4 is related to the so-called operation of “coupling of list items”, which is not a technical task.

The fact that it is performed on a screen does not make the task technical. To the contrary, GUIs and associated user experiences belong to the sphere of non-technical artistic activity, graphic design and animation (see T 1681/18, Reasons 2 and T 1762/18, Reasons 3).

For the same reasons, feature 4 is also not considered technical.

Based on its finding that the distinguishing features of claim 1 of the main request did not contribute to its technical character, the Board dismissed the appeal due to a lack of an inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1042/122 (Coupling of list items/SONY) of February 29, 2024.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Translating text in images: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to translations of text within images, which was refused by the EPO since the independent claims merely provide an obvious implementation for improvements at the user’s cognitive level. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0415/21 (Translations of text in images/GOOGLE) of November 14, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Designing a GUI layout and presenting information in a way that merely improves the user’s cognitive level are non-technical aspects.

Interactive elements of a GUI which a user may trigger to display additional information are considered technical.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision concerns a system for identifying text depicted in an image, translating the text, and presenting the translation, the presentation being based on the arrangement and/or other visual characteristics of the text within the image. The purpose is to present the translation in a manner that is useful to a user and avoids cluttering the display (see original description, page 9, lines 11 to 19).

Based on the arrangement and visual characteristics of the text in the image, the system selects a “presentation context”. The system then selects a user interface corresponding to the selected presentation context for presenting additional information about text identified in the image (e.g. a language translation of text identified in the image or a currency translation of a monetary amount identified in the image, see page 11, line 26, to page 12, line 3, and original claim 2).

Fig. 2 of WO 2015/069737 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

It was common ground that claim 1 differs over the closest prior art D1 by the following features:

  1. the presentation context is selected from a plurality of presentation contexts based on an arrangement of the text depicted by the image, wherein each presentation context corresponds to a particular arrangement of text within images and each presentation context has a corresponding user interface for presenting additional information related to the text depicted in the image, wherein the user interface for each presentation context is different from the user interface for other presentation contexts;
  2. the user interface that corresponds to the selected presentation context is identified;
  3. additional information for a second portion of the text is not automatically presented;
  4. a selectable user-interface element is provided, which is selectable by a user to present additional information for the second portion of text depicted in the image.

The Appellant argued that these features solve the objective technical problem of:

How to modify the image to include further information while resolving the conflict with the technical constraints of a limited display area and the physical features of the original image.

In support of the technicality of this problem, the appellant cited decision T 928/03, in which the particular manner of conveying to the user the location of the nearest teammate by dynamically displaying a guide mark on the edge of the screen when the teammate was off-screen produced the technical effect of facilitating a continued human-machine interaction by resolving conflicting technical requirements.

Thus, the Appellant argued that:

The distinguishing features of claim 1 likewise achieved an enhanced human-machine interaction by resolving conflicting technical requirements.

Features (1)-(3) were considered as non-technical by the Board for the following reasons:

Features (1), (2) and (3) concern the layout design of a graphical user interface (GUI) and presentation of information.

It cannot be derived from claim 1 that the choice of presentation of information of features (1) to (3) is determined by constraints of the display area. Instead, information is presented such that the user is not confused by too much information or multiple text blocks being displayed simultaneously.

Accordingly, the improvement caused by distinguishing features (1) to (3) is merely at the user’s cognitive level, which is not a technical effect.

Therefore, distinguishing features (1) to (3) merely reflect non-technical requirements of how to present the translated text. This case is different from that of T 928/03 because features (1) to (3) do not solve technical constraints of the display and there is no zone of interest outside of the displayed area.

With respect to feature (4), the Board stated:

Feature (4) specifies a selectable user-interface element which the user may select to view additional information for a second portion of the text which is not automatically displayed (feature (3)). The selectable user-interface element of feature (iv) is an interactive element which the user can activate to trigger the display of the additional information.

Feature (iv) is thus a technical part of the user interface (see also T 2028/11, reasons 3.6). It solves the problem of modifying the method of D1 to implement the optional display of additional information for a second portion of the text (feature (iii)).

Selectable user-interface elements such as buttons or links which, when selected, cause further information to be displayed are notoriously known, for example from web applications and from mobile devices. In particular, buttons of a graphical user interface and links (or hyperlinks) to further information in a web application are universally used by members of the general public, e.g. when operating smart phones or laptops.

It would thus have been obvious for the skilled person given the task of implementing the desired non-technical presentation of the optional display of a second portion of the text to use a selectable user-interface element in the system of D1, which runs on a mobile device (see e.g. D1, abstract and paragraph [0002]).

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

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0415/21 (Translations of text in images/GOOGLE) of November 14, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Automatic trading system with computer aided decision-methods: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to automated stock trading, which was refused by the EPO since the independent claims mainly address the implementation of a non-technical financial/business scheme. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1395/20 (Personal indicator/LANNG) of November 7, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Claims which are not limited to but cover one obvious implementation are deemed to be obvious as a whole.

The invention

The application relates, in general, to automated stock trading. The invention in claim 16 of the main request defines a computer implemented method for defining and “back testing” a “personal indicator” (see Figure below) based on user-selectable timeframes and criteria.

The “personal indicator” is described as an automated trading strategy which decides when to buy or sell a stock (cf. application as filed, page 1, lines 25-28). It is defined based on a combination of criteria, for example, relating to technical indicators. Back testing such a personal indicator means testing the trading strategy on historical data. The user may define the personal indicator by selecting a “timeframe” from a set of timeframes in a multidimensional “criteria grid”. The timeframes are associated with criteria so that, by selecting a timeframe, the user also selects a criteria at the same time. However, it is not completely clear from the claim and the description how this works.

As shown in Fig. 14 (see below), a “criteria grid” may be implemented as a two-dimensional array of boxes that the user can select. It appears that, by selecting a row, the user selects a criteria (e.g., Close < MOV0) corresponding to the row, and by selecting a box in that row, the user selects a timeframe (M, 1, 2, 3) for that criteria. However, this is not reflected in the claim.

The examining division found that the claimed invention was an obvious implementation of a financial scheme on a notoriously known computer system. They considered the personal indicator to be a financial object for decision support during trading and test sessions, and the back testing to be a financial operation. No technical effect could be derived from this financial scheme. The computer implementation, in particular the provision of a user interface for data selection, would have been obvious to the skilled person at the level of generality of claim 16.

Fig. 14 of WO 2009/000264 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 16 of the main request:

  • Claim 16 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

In the grounds of appeal, the Appellant argued:

Starting from EP1952330A1 as the closest prior art, that the distinguishing feature of the claimed invention is the use of a criteria grid for adding and removing criteria, and that this is technical as it assists the user in performing a technical task similar to the one in T 643/00 (Searching image data/CANON). By means of the “one click” solution, the user may efficiently add criteria.

Furthermore, the Appellant argued:

The invention is a “general purpose solution” which is not limited to financial criteria. It could be used for adding any type of criteria to a personal indicator. Thus, the objective technical problem solved by the invention is “how to efficiently develop and test a personal indicator.

However, the Board did not follow this argumentation and instead stated:

Even if claim 16 is not limited to back testing a trading strategy, it covers this subject-matter. It is enough that the claim covers something that would have been obvious to the skilled person for it to lack an inventive step (Article 56 EPC). Furthermore, the application does not disclose any examples of a personal indicator other than a strategy for buying or selling financial instruments.

Moreover, the Board is not convinced that the “criteria grid” assists the user in performing a technical task, simply because there is no technical task involved. The case T 643/00 concerned a particular arrangement of images of different resolution on the screen, enabling the user to efficiently search for images. In the Board’s view, neither the facts nor the principles in T 643/00 are relevant to the present case.

Thus, the Board does not see that the criteria grid in claim 16 has a technical effect beyond that of allowing the user to select a criteria and time frames for the personal indicator. This would however have been normal user interface design.

As a result, the Board came to the conclusion that claim 16 lacks an inventive step and dismissed the appeal.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1395/20 (Personal indicator/LANNG)of November 7, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Rain-sensitive parcel delivering: non-technical

The application underlying this decision relates to delivery of rain-sensitive parcels. However, the European Patent Office refused to grant a patent since claim 1 mainly addresses the implementation of a non-technical logistics scheme. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 1806/20 (Rain-sensitive parcels/IVECO) of November 17, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Avoidance of rain damages with respect to parcel delivery is not a technical, but a business consideration.

Data is only considered as functional data if data loss results in an inoperable system.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision focuses on a parcel delivery system aimed at preventing water damage to sensitive parcels. The system utilizes RFID technology, weather forecasts, and a remote server to enhance the route planning and delivery management process.

The delivery vehicle, equipped with a satellite navigation system connected to a remote server, calculates routes and acquires weather forecasts for parcel destinations. Each parcel has an RFID tag storing its delivery details and water-sensitivity feature. The remote server, independently managing water-sensitivity features, guides the driver through the calculated route. If rain is expected at a destination, the navigation system warns the driver, and the server reschedules delivery for a rain-free time on the same day or the following day.

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D3 failed to disclose the following distinguishing features:

A) Delivery of a plurality of parcels, contrasting with the single parcel delivery in the prior art.

B) The route involves multiple destinations with weather forecasts and time intervals for each, in contrast to the prior art, which provides these details for only one destination.

C) Incorporation of an RFID tag associated with each parcel, storing both water-sensitivity features and destination.

D) Inclusion of means for sending a warning message when rain is expected at the destination of a water-sensitive parcel during its expected delivery time.

E) The remote server’s ability to recalculate the route in case of rain, either by postponing the delivery on the same day or rescheduling it to the following rain-free day.

The Appelant argued as follows:

The prevention of damage to physical objects, exemplified by avoiding rain damage to parcels, is a technical solution akin to protecting electrical circuits.

The calculation of real-time guided vehicle routes based on real-world conditions, such as water-sensitivity features and rain forecasts, is a technical task (cf., T 2035/11).

The water-sensitivity features and rain forecast are classified as functional data with inherent technical character, meeting the criteria established in T 1194/97.

The technical nature of the parcels’ water-sensitivity features was affirmed due to their association with RFID technology.

However, the Board did not follow this argumentation and instead found that the distinguishing features implement a non-technical logistics scheme. The Board argued as follows:

Labeling rain-sensitive parcels and avoiding their delivery in the rain is deemed a common-sense business measure, falling under a business activity. Such measures do not necessitate technical considerations, distinguishing it from examples involving technical protective measures.

Contrary to the referenced case T 2035/11, the present application does not involve a dynamic recalculation of a route, but merely a rescheduling which covers following the same route but not dropping some parcels off. Even if one would consider the rescheduling involving some route modification, said modification has only technical character if it is based on technical considerations. However, avoidance of rain damages is not considered a technical consideration.

Data is only considered functional if the loss of said data would make the system inoperable at the technical level. However, the loss of water-sensitivity information would not cause the system to stop working as the vehicle would still be guided, and parcels would be delivered.

Accordingly, the Board applying the Comvik Approach concluded that implementing the above-identified distinguishing features would have been obvious for the skilled person in view of the above-outlined business requirements. Thus, the Board concluded that the subject matter of claim 1 lacks an inventive step under Article 56 EPC, because the distinguishing features are considered part of a non-technical logistics scheme, and adapting a known system (D3) with these features would be obvious to a skilled person based on common sense business requirements. The use of RFID tags is also deemed obvious in view of common general knowledge.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 1806/20 (Rain-sensitive parcels/IVECO) of November 17, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Travel time prediction: non-technical

This decision concerns a system for prediciting a travel time. However, the Board did not grant a patent, because the application allegedly merely provides a more accurate/faster prediction of a travel time which is a non-technical activity. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 2367/22 (Travel process prediction/THE AQUA ENTERPRISE COMPANY) of September 12, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Key takeaways

Statistical calculations might provide accurate/reliable prediction results. This is, however, an inherent property of the calculations themselves and not a result of a particular implementation or the underlying technical system.

Providing an improved method for predicting a non-technical activity does not provide a technial effect.

The invention

The invention concerns a system for more accurately predicting a travel time (“travel process”), by including predictions of the time spent waiting at various points during the trip, such as in the departure or arrival hall at an airport.

The prediction relies on historical data, specifically the “passage time”, which denotes instances when travelers pass through different checkpoints at the airport, along with corresponding “transportation specifying” (e.g. flight) and “situation” (e.g. weather) information – see Figure 8. It employs regression analysis along with statistical tests for means and variances.

The prediction results are, for example, an estimated time for a traveler to reach an arrival gate at the airport (“estimate value of passage time”), the time elapsed between passage points or an estimated duration between the completion of boarding and passage at a specific passage point. Moreover, based on the outcome of statistical tests, the user is provided with advice (“explanatory text” in claim 1 of auxiliary request 9), such as “Make travel plan with sufficient time to spare” (see Figure 19, “ADVICE T”).

Fig. 1 of EP3355265 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

The appellant argued that the claim, defining a travel time prediction system, incorporates technical features, including a mathematical algorithm for predicting travel time through regression analysis and probability density functions. Moreover, the claimed system is highlighted for its ability to collect comprehensive data, including weather information, employing multivariate data sets for regression analysis.

The appellant further argued that this detailed data analysis contributes to the technical character of the invention, making it eligible for patent protection. For example, the predicted outcomes could be utilized to optimize parts of the transportation process, enhancing efficiency and reducing energy consumption.

However, the Board rejected these arguments, referencing a prior case (T 1148/18) that asserted predicting arrival or passage times based on historical data lacks a technical character.

The Board emphasized that tasks associated with statistical calculations for travel prediction are within the purview of a person skilled in statistics and travel planning, rather than a technically skilled individual. The selection of parameters is thus deemed non-technical, with no reflection in the broadest interpretation of the claim.

Despite the appellant’s emphasis on technical details in the description, the Board concluded that the claimed means are inherent in any general-purpose computer and, thus, the computer implementation is considered obvious. Additionally, the Board underscored that the claimed prediction method lacks more specific features (e.g., a feedback mechanism to control the transportation system), which could distinguish it from the prior art. These features going beyond a general-purpose computer, such as error-handling procedures, were considered immaterial to the inventive step evaluation as they were not part of claim 1.

Consequently, the Board ruled that claim 1 of the Main Request lack an inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 2367/22 (Travel process prediction/THE AQUA ENTERPRISE COMPANY) of September 12, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Controlled training of a recommender system: technical

The application underlying this decision relates to controlling a recommender system configured to provide up-to-date predictions of user preferences for products within a large set, for example within a Video on Demand (VOD) catalogue. In view of, the European Patent Office controlling the type and amount of data used for training the recommender system in the claimed manner achieves a technical effect. Thus, a European Patent was granted. Here are the practical takeaways of the decision T 0183/21 (Controlling the performance of a recommender system/BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS) of September 29, 2023 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.07:

Key takeaways

Recommending products is generally recognised as having non-technical character.

Optimizing resource usage (e.g., with respect to bandwidth consumption or computational effort) for training a recommender system is considered technical.

The invention

The application underlying the present decision mainly concerns the controlling of a recommender system configured to provide up-to-date predictions of user preferences for products within a large set, for example within a Video on Demand (VOD) catalogue. According to the description, providing data from a huge number of users to retrain a recommender system presents challenges in that it takes up system resources. For example, transferring user preference information from a large number of client devices takes up bandwidth within the communications network connecting the client devices to the recommender system. Moreover, training activities have a high computational cost for the recommender system.

Thus, the need to retrain must be balanced against the quality of recommendations being provided. The type and amount of training data provided to the recommender system is thus controlled in order to drive the performance of the recommender system towards a desired performance value (or to be maintained within a desired performance range). The desired performance value may not be the optimum level achievable, but may be a level available to the majority (if not all) of the users of the services being offered.

Fig. 1 of WO 2013128154 A1

Here is how the invention is defined in claim 1 of the main request:

  • Claim 1 (Main Request)

Is it technical?

Both the Board in charge and the Appellant agreed that the closest prior art document D1 failed to disclose features 3-8. D1 discloses a recommender system in a communication system including a client device associated with a user to which the recommendations are provided.

At first, the Board stated that recommending products is not generally recognised as having technical character (see T 1869/08, Reasons 2.6 to 2.10, and T 0306/10, Reasons 5.2). The Applicant agreed and responded that the purpose of the present invention was not about recommending products but rather to limit the amount of resources used.

The applicant argued that the above-identified distinguishing features provide the technical effect of minimizing the use of network bandwidth required to provide the training data to the recommender system. Same applies to the amount of storage necessary for storing said training data. The amount of training data is indirectly limited via the tendency/convergence of the measured performance metric towards (or oscillation around) the predetermined level of recommendation performance yref which is not necessarily the maximum achievable level of recommendation performance.

The Board agreed and thus defined the objective technical problem as reducing the use of network bandwidth and the amount of sotrage in a communication system including a client device and a recommender system in communication with the client device.

According to the Board, D1 discloses that the data processing algorithms of the invention are re-trained to reduce the differences between actual feedback and earlier predictions with the sole purpose of achieving a maximum performance metric of the recommender system.

Therefore, the skilled person would not use a “reference performance metric” which might be different from a “maximum achievable performance metric”. Moreover, even if the skilled person were to use such a “reference performance metric”, they would not be able, without exercising inventive skills, to derive the amount of training data and also the specific training data per se (i.e. implicitly the nature of the training data or the chosen training data), from a “positive correlation” with the measured performance metric (yielding either an increasing or decreasing amount of training data) and usage data respectively.

Instead, the Board stated that the skilled person would at best incrementally increase the amount of training data until the reference performance metric is at least almost achieved and then stop changing the amount of training data. Thus, the skilled person would not consider decreasing the amount of training data so that the measured performance metric oscillates towards the reference performance metric.

As a result, the Board concluded that claim 1 of the Main Request involves an inventive step and thus set aside the decision under appeal.

 

More information

You can read the whole decision here: T 0183/21 (Controlling the performance of a recommender system/BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS) of September 29, 2023.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Scheduling online sessions: non-technical

This decision concerns a method for scheduling online sessions. However, the Board did not grant a patent, because the application allegedly merely provides a solution to a non-technical problem, namely scheduling of future online sessions based on the availability of the users. 

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1685/19 (Tracking, Correlating and Processing Multi-User Online Sessions/SONY) of July 18, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

Scheduling of meetings or online sessions based on available time slots is of administrative nature. Consequently, sending less invitations based on the availability of the users can also not provide a technical effect, even if this might result in reduced network traffic.

The invention

The application concerns a method for scheduling online sessions. For this purpose, user profiles are created using the monitored online behaviour of potential participants. When a particular user requests an online session, the user profiles are used to determine which other users could be interested in joining and are likely to be available for this online session. These are then invited and, after they have replied, the online session is entered into their calendars.

 

Fig. 1 of EP2191383 A1

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

It was common ground that claim 1 includes the following distinguishing features compared to the closest prior art document (D4), which concerns a method for setting up online game sessions where potential participants are invited based upon their user profiles which are created by tracking the users’ activities (see e.g. paragraphs [10], [49], [58] and [70])):

  • properties that the user is likely to share with other users are the times that the user is likely to be available;
  • desired time slots for an online session are determined;
  • the profile furthermore indicates that the users are likely to be available at the desired time slot;
  • the online session is entered into the calendars of the participants of the online session.

Regarding the technical effect of said features as well as the technical problem to be solved, the Appellant argued:

In D4 several technical problems are present such as handling large numbers of potential players who might join an online session, transmission of invitations to candidate session joiners who might be uninterested or unavailable and that only players currently playing were eligible to be invited to join.

The application solved these problems by potentially contacting a lower number of potential users in line with their predicted individual schedules. Individual users would thus not receive irrelevant or unwanted requests incompatible with their availability, which could cut down on network traffic. Reducing the number of invitations a user will receive while still allowing them to select the activities they are predicted to enjoy most was a clear technical benefit over the prior art. The burden upon the system handling the invitations would be reduced, offering a clear technical advantage.

Furthermore, D4 relates to the creation of an immediate online session and does contain no suggestion that the organized game session might take place in the future rather than in the present. Thus, there was no planning of a specific time for the event.

Regarding “organizing events in the future, entry into calendar” (as defined by features f) and j)) the Board found that:

Generally, the time at which an event is to be organised, e.g. in a week’s time instead of tomorrow, or more generally in the future instead of in the present, depends on organisational circumstances. Such organisational circumstances may include, for instance, considerations as to the availability of resources (e.g. is the car required to go to the beach available right now or only tomorrow) or legal restrictions (an event for children, for example, may have end before 9 p.m. depending on the age of the participants).

In any case, organisational circumstances like that are non-technical requirements imposed on the organizer (and thus, in an environment where computers are used, on the skilled person) which per se do not achieve any technical effect.

Therefore, the Board concluded that scheduling future events rather than immediate events does not provide a technical effect.

With respect to “reducing the number of invitations, network traffic and burden on the system managing the invitations” (as specified by features c), e3) and g3)) the Board found that:

Sending invitations only to persons who are likely to be available and not to persons who are unlikely to be available (and thereby, in the present case and as mentioned by the appellant, reducing the number of candidate session joiners/potential players) is per se not a technical concept, but rather an organisational or administrative one.

In addition, this concept has been generally known for a long time. For instance, it is common sense not to ask football players to go to the cinema on a day on which they have training, because it is unlikely that they are available.

In that manner, the number of invitations sent and received is reduced, and in a computerized system, this reduces network traffic and the burden of the system handling the sending of invitations, as submitted by the appellant. However, this effect would be achieved by a modification of the underlying organisational or administrative concept (which in addition was generally known) as set out above, thereby circumventing a technical problem rather than solving it by technical means.

Therefore, the Board concluded that reducing the number of invitations based on availability of the users does not provide a technical effect.

Based on these findings, the Board formulated the objective technical problem as “how to implement the non-technical requirements of additionally taking into account the likely availability of the potential users at a desired time in the future”.

Finally, the Board stated that the skilled person starting from D4 in search for a solution to this non-technical problem, would have had no difficulties to solve the objective technical problem of implementing the non-technical requirements of additionally taking into account the likely availability of the potential users at a desired time in the future in the system of D4.

Therefore, the Board concluded that claim 1 lacks inventive step with respect to document D4 (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1685/19 (Tracking, Correlating and Processing Multi-User Online Sessions/SONY) of July 18, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

DETERMINING A TECHNICAL STOP OF A VEHICLE: non-technical

This decision concerns a method for determining a technical stop of a vehicle. However, the Board did not grant a patent, because the application allegedly merely provides a solution to a non-technical problem, namely fleet managing. 

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1411/21 (DETERMINING A TECHNICAL STOP OF A VEHICLE/TARGA) of July 25, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02.

Key takeaways

The fact that a task involves technical entities does not necessarily render the task itself technical.

Heuristic approaches that do not require technical knowledge are non-technical..

The invention

The invention concerns a system for determining technical stops of vehicles. Technical stops refer to periods of time when a vehicle becomes unavailable for use due to technical malfunctions or other issues. The system includes a method, server, computer program, vehicle, and system that work together to automatically record and process information from vehicles, allowing fleet managers to accurately and autonomously detect technical stops.

The system may be particularly useful for long-term hire companies and vehicle fleet managers who need to optimize their operations and efficiency. By detecting technical stops with high accuracy and promptly, fleet managers can have a general view of the operating status of a fleet of vehicles and decide how to allocate the use and operation of one or more other vehicles of the fleet.

Fig. 7 of EP 3 422 299 A1

  • Claim 1 of Auxiliary Request II

Is it patentable?

It was common ground that claim 1 includes the underlined distinguishing features compared to the closest prior art (please refer to the claim overview).

Regarding the technical effect of said features as well as the technical problem to be solved, the Appellant argued:

Starting from document D1, the effect of the differentiating features was to simply and accurately detect downtime of vehicles belonging to a fleet. Therefore, the objective technical problem was to implement an automatic detection of downtime of vehicles of a fleet.

Regarding the technicality of said features, the Appellant stated that means such as geofencing, position and diagnostic data were undisputedly technical.

Regarding the definition of the term “technical stop” the Appellant further argued:

Although the background section of the description contained a general definition with respect to stops due to nontechnical reasons, the invention as claimed focused on stops caused by technical faults or technical maintenance. Since the claims defined the stop only in relation to parameters related to a technical malfunction or a technical maintenance, the feature “technical stop” was technical and contributed to the presence of an inventive step.

Once the presence of a technical stop has been accurately detected, the maintenance of other vehicles can be reprogrammed so that a sufficient number of vehicles remain in use within the fleet and/or other vehicles can be (re)assigned to users in order to maintain the utilisation of the fleet at an appropriate level. In this way, an efficient use of fleet resources could be achieved, which was a fundamental technical optimisation.

However, the Board did not follow these arguments. While the Board agreed that geofencing, position and diagnostic data are technical, these concepts were already known in the prior art and can thus not contribute to the presence of an inventive step.

With respect to the term “technical stop”, the Board stated (emphasis added):

Claim 1 defines that it is “generated by a breakdown or by routine or special maintenance”. As further explained in the application, a “technical stop” is a concept used, for example, by long-term hire companies to optimise the efficiency of fleet utilisation (see page 2, first paragraph). Therefore, the board agrees with the examining division that a “technical stop” is not a technical feature.

Furthermore, the claimed rule for determining a “technical stop” is not based on technical but rather on administrative considerations. In the present case, this rule is defined, for example, by a fleet manager who decides that a “technical stop” occurs when a vehicle is in a maintenance centre while there is a malfunction in the vehicle.

With respect to the determination of a “technical stop”, the claim defines the following two conditions which must be met simultaneously in order for a “technical stop” to be present:

“Entry status”: The vehicle is in a maintenance centre.

“Secondary status”: Indicating a situation of malfunction.

The board agrees with the examining division’s reasoning: the claimed determination is based on a heuristic approach which does not solve any particular technical problem. Such a rule may be based on experience and common sense, but it does not require technical knowledge of the vehicle or the central data collection system. Technical considerations may only come into play when such heuristics or rules are implemented in a technical system.

Furthermore, the Board stated (emphasis added):

Managing a fleet is not a technical task simply because it involves technical entities (vehicles). A fleet manager who checks and manages the availability of vehicles in a fleet is not performing a technical task but a business task.

As set out above, the differentiating features are considered to be non-technical. The non-technical features of a claim may be incorporated into a goal to be achieved in a non-technical field.

In conclusion, the board is of the opinion that, starting from document D1, the skilled person is faced with the non-technical problem of determining whether a technical stop is present, based on the rule that the vehicle is in a maintenance centre and sends information indicating a malfunction.

Finally, the Board stated that the skilled person starting from D1 in search for a solution to this non-technical problem, only had to implement the rules for determining the presence of a “technical stop” in the computer system, which is well within the routine capabilities of the person skilled in the art and does not contribute to the presence of an inventive step.

Therefore, the Board concluded that claim 1 lacks inventive step with respect to document D1 (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1411/21 (DETERMINING A TECHNICAL STOP OF A VEHICLE/TARGA) of July 25, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02.

Stay in the loop

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

Privacy policy
* = Required field

Information distribution based on user preferences: non-technical

This decision concerns a system for distributing information based on a user’s state. However, the Board did not grant a patent, because the application allegedly relates to a mere technical implementation of a non-technical scheme for delivering information to users. 

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0570/20 (Information distribution system/DENTSU) of May 31, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Whether or not parameters are technical has to be determined in the context of the application.

Decisions which are based on subjective criteria such as user preferences do not provide a technical effect.

The invention

The invention concerns a system for selecting information, for example advertisements, to be provided to the users of mobile terminals. If the selection is only based on the users’ position, different users in the same area will generally receive the same information (description, paragraphs [0002] to [0005]). The goal of the invention is to better tailor the information provided to the users’ needs. To achieve this, a server stores users’ information access requests associated with their position and the time at which the request was received. The server makes use of this information, called “user history information”, to determine a “state of the user” for a given combination of time and location depending, for example, on whether a user tends to prefer work-related information over amusement-related information. The server also determines an action pattern for the users based on their state, position and location. Finally, the server selects the information to be provided based on the users’ present state and action pattern (paragraphs [0006] and [0007]).

Fig. 1 of EP 2846301 A1

  • Claim 1 of the Main Request

Is it patentable?

In its reasoning the Board stated that claim 1 essentially defines a computer server providing information to a user terminal, based on the received terminal location and on user history information.

Importantly, in view of the Board, “the content of the information provided is cognitive data and does not have a technical significance. It may consist, for example, of advertisements (see description, paragraph [0017])“. As a result, the Board concluded (emphasis added):

The selection of the information is based on heuristic, subjective criteria, the formulation of which does not require any technical knowledge or skills. In particular, the “state of the user” represents a tendency of the user to prefer some types of information, for a given time and place, and is determined through a statistical analysis of the cognitive content of the user’s past information access requests. The “pattern of action” represents an assessment of users’ current activities, based on their state.

The overall effect is to provide users with non-technical information matching their estimated interests and course of action. In the Board’s view, this is not a technical purpose and does not credibly solve any technical problem.

The appellant argued that forming combinations of locations and time was per se technical and that, following decision T 115/85, associating these combinations with the states of the user made a technical contribution.

Furthermore, the appellant stated that a technical contribution derived from the fact:

That the server was able to determine the state of the users based on time and location information, thereby avoiding them having to manually input their state into the terminal device. Also the invention, when compared with D1, enabled “to more accurately send messages to the user and to implement this solution in such a way that is convenient for the user”.

However, the Board did not follow these arguments for the following reasons (emphasis added):

A combination of locations and times may have a purely administrative relevance, like for example in the case of a work schedule.

In the context of the invention, time and location are associated in the state database with the user state, which indicates whether a user has shown a tendency to select work-related over leisure-related information, or vice versa. This information does not concern “conditions prevailing in an apparatus or system”, as in the case at issue in T 115/85. It merely reflects the user’s past choices for a given time and place and provides, at most, a heuristic estimate of the user’s preferences, which does not have a technical significance.

Any increase in the “accuracy” and “convenience” of the information depends on the user’s subjective preferences, and cannot be considered a credible and objective effect of the claimed subject matter. As discussed above, determining the “state of the user” in the manner set out in claim 1 represents a heuristic, non-technical manner of estimating said preferences. Hence, in the Board’s view, the invention does not solve the technical problem of reducing or avoiding user interaction; rather, it circumvents the problem by replacing the user input with a non-technical algorithm.

As a result, the Board agreed with the contested decision that a networked computer is the only technical feature of claim 1 and a suitable starting point for assessing inventive step. Said computer allegedly implements, in a straightforward manner, a non-technical scheme for delivering information to users.

In the absence of any technical effect going beyond the mere automation of the scheme, the Board concluded that claim 1 lacks inventive step (Article 56 EPC).

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 0570/20 (Information distribution system/DENTSU) of May 31, 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