2020002431 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2021)

AVIGILON FORTRESS CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 25, 2021

2020002431 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/959,571 12/04/2015 Zeeshan Rasheed PATAVL150-US-ORG 1362 22917 7590 06/25/2021 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. IP Law Docketing 500 W. Monroe 43rd Floor Chicago, IL 60661 EXAMINER SHAHNAMI, AMIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/25/2021 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ZEESHAN RASHEED, WEIHONG YIN, ZHONG ZHANG, KYLE GLOWACKI, and ALLISON BEACH ____________ Appeal 2020-002431 Application 14/959,571 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–25. Claims 10, 13, 15, 18, 20, and 21 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Avigilon Fortress Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002431 Application 14/959,571 2 The present invention relates generally to predicting when an object will arrive at a boundary. See Spec., Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method for predicting when a vehicle will arrive at a boundary, comprising: receiving visual media captured by a camera; identifying the vehicle in the visual media; determining one or more parameters related to the vehicle based on analysis of the visual media; identifying that the vehicle is on a predefined road to the boundary; predicting, taking into account a determined distance along the road, when the vehicle will arrive at the boundary using the one or more parameters; and transmitting an alert to a user indicating when the vehicle is predicted to arrive at the boundary. Appellant appeals the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 5–7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) and Oami (US 2013/0329958 A1, published Dec. 12, 2013). Final Act. 3–11. R2. Claims 2–4, 8, 9, and 22–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over AAPA and Oami in combination with various other prior art. See Final Act. 11–21. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appeal 2020-002431 Application 14/959,571 3 ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) teaches or suggests identifying that the vehicle is on a predefined road to the boundary, as set forth in claim 1? Here, AAPA is identified as paragraphs 4–5 in Appellant’s Background section of the Specification (see Final Act. 3), and the Examiner finds that paragraph 4 teaches that it is known to identify that a vehicle is on a predefined road to the boundary. Id. at 4. Appellant contends that “[n]owhere in Appellant’s paragraph [0004] or anywhere else in Appellant’s Background Section does it explicitly or implicitly disclose . . . a vehicle is ‘on the predefined road to the boundary’” (Appeal Br. 10), because “[t]here is no determination at all whether the vehicle made that crossing by staying on a predefined road or if the vehicle crossed in some other manner (e.g., ‘off-roading’).” Id. Appellant’s Specification states the following: A virtual line (e.g., a ‘tripwire’) may be placed across a path or road at a predetermined distance (e.g., one mile) away from the military base. When the system visually identifies the object (e.g., a vehicle) crossing the virtual line on the way to the military base, the system may generate a notification or alert so that a user may take action, for example, to analyze the object to determine whether it may present a threat. Spec. ¶ 4. In other words, Appellant’s Specification specifically states that a tripwire is placed “across” a road at a predetermined distance away from a military base. We find that any placement “across” the road signifies placing the tripwire from one side to the other side of the road, which necessarily requires an object to be “on” the road, at least partially, in order to activate Appeal 2020-002431 Application 14/959,571 4 the tripwire. Total off-road movement does not appear to activate any tripwire placed across the road, primarily because Appellant’s Specification does not state that the tripwire is placed off-road in addition to being placed across the road. In Appellant’s Specification, the only description of how far the tripwire expands is “across” the road. See Spec. ¶ 4. Regarding Appellant’s contention that “[t]here is no determination at all whether the vehicle made that crossing by staying on a predefined road or if the vehicle crossed in some other manner (e.g., ‘off-roading’)” (see Appeal Br. 10), we find that in order to visually identify the object crossing the virtual line, i.e., tripwire, the vehicle must be on the road, at least partially. Therefore, we find that Appellant’s Specification in paragraph 4 sufficiently teaches/suggests the claimed “identifying that the vehicle is on a predefined road to the boundary” because it discloses visually identifying the vehicle crossing the tripwire placed across a road leading to the military base. As for Appellant’s “articulated rationale” and “hindsight” arguments (see Appeal Br. 12), we find that Appellant’s arguments are misplaced as the Examiner’s findings rest on a factual basis and the Examiner is relying on AAPA alone to teach the argued limitations, not on any modified teachings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over at least AAPA in combination with Oami, likewise with the rejections of claims 2–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–25, which are not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2020-002431 Application 14/959,571 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–25 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5–7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 103 AAPA, Oami 1, 5–7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 2–4, 24, 25 103 AAPA, Oami, Johnson2 2–4, 24, 25 8, 9 103 AAPA, Oami, Sternberg3 8, 9 22, 23 103 AAPA, Oami, Venetianer4 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1–9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22–25 No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED 2 US 2015/0088982 A1, Mar. 26, 2015. 3 US 2011/0115909 A1, May 19, 2011. 4 US 2004/0105570 A1, June 3, 2004.