Ex Parte Shu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 7, 2016

11455251 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111455,251 06/16/2006
49267 7590 11/09/2016
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P,C
401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Chiao-Fe Shu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
YOR920060395US 1
(163-141)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8532
EXAMINER
LEE, YYOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/09/2016 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):
patents@tb-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIAO-FE SHU, ARUN HAMPAPUR, ZUOXUAN LU, YING-
LI TIAN, LISA MARIE BROWN, and ANDREW WILLIAM SENIOR
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 8 and 21-26. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to smart surveillance. Spec
i-f 2. Independent claim 8 reads as follows:
8. A surveillance system, comprising:
a plurality of cameras configured to monitor an
environment;
a plurality of analytic engines associated with each camera,
the plurality of analytic engines employing recognition and
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
motion detection technologies to analyze input from the cameras
to determine whether an event has occurred in a respective
technology in accordance with defined event criteria, the motion
detection technologies include at least one of: behavior analysis,
license plate recognition, a face recognition, a badge reader and
ground radar; and
a unifying data model configured to analyze timelines
associated with a plurality of different technologies and to cross
correlate events on the timelines to define an integrated event
which collectively considers data from the correlated events;
a schema manager configured to incorporate new analytical
technologies into the surveillance system and cross correlate
events from the new analytical technologies with events from
existing technologies in the surveillance system;
the system including: a system data model which captures a
specification of a monitoring system, a user data model which
models users, privileges and user functionality, and an event data
model which captures events that occur in a monitored space.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hampapur (US 2005/0012817 Al, published January 20,
2005) and Arnn Hampapur, et al., "The IBM Smart Surveillance System,"
IEEE 2004 ("Hampapur 2").
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 8 and 21-26?
2
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
ANALYSIS
Claim 8 recites a surveillance system comprising cameras that employ
"recognition and motion detection technologies to analyze ... whether an
event has occurred in a respective technology," analyzing "timelines
associated with a plurality of different technologies," cross correlating
"events on the timelines to define an integrated event," incorporating "new
analytical technologies into the surveillance system and cross correlat[ing]
events from the new analytical technologies with events from existing
technologies in the surveillance system." The Examiner finds that the
combination of Hampapur and Hampapur 2 teaches or suggests these claim
features. See, e.g., Ans. 3 (finding Hampapur discloses "analytical
technologies," as recited in claim 8). We agree with the Examiner.
For example, Hampapur discloses "a system and method for
selectively monitoring movements of objects" (i-f 22) that includes
recognition (e.g., a static camera-i-fi-f 35, 38) and motion detection (e.g.,
pan-tilt-zoom cameras-i-fi-f 14, 35, 38) to determine whether an event has
occurred (e.g., "zoom in on targets moving across the monitored space" -
i135) and incorporating new analytical technologies (e.g., various
technologies disclosed throughout the Hampapur reference including
"microphones," "infrared or other type sensors" (Hampapur i123),
"background subtraction," "correlation," "minimization of the sum of
absolute pixel differences," "color similarity" (Hampapur i1 52), correlating
3
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
tracks in order of depth, resolving occlusions using an "explanation map"
(Hampapur i-f 53), or 3D tracker using "wide baseline stereo" (Hampapur
i-f 55), to name a few).
Appellants argue Hampapur 2 discloses a "database" but fails to teach
or suggest "analytical technology" because a "database" "does not imply an
'analysis' of any sort." We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for
at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. See, e.g., Ans. 3-5. For
example, claim 8 recites "analytical technologies" but does not recite
"database." For at least this reason we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument. In addition, Appellants do not explain a sufficient difference
between any of the numerous "analytical technologies" disclosed by
Hampapur (e.g., "microphones," "infrared or other type sensors,"
"background subtraction," "correlation," "minimization of the sum of
absolute pixel differences," "color similarity," correlating tracks in order of
depth, resolving occlusions using an "explanation map," or 3D tracker using
"wide baseline stereo") and "analytical technologies," as recited in claim 8.
In all cases, such "technologies" are incorporated (with corresponding
events - e.g., specific movement of an object- cross correlated) into a
surveillance system.
Appellants also argue that Hampapur 2 fails to disclose or suggest a
"new" database (or "analytical technology") "to an existing system." App.
Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for at least the
reasons set forth by the Examiner. See, e.g., Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5. For
4
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
example, Appellants do not explain a sufficient difference between the
"new" analytical technology, as recited in claim 8, for example, and any of
the technologies disclosed by Hampapur as previously discussed.
Appellants argue that Hampapur 2 discloses "[ t ]he mere presence of
two functional components in a system [that work together]" but fails to
teach or suggest "events from respective technologies that are cross
correlated." App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. See, e.g., Final Act. 3.
For example, as previously discussed, both Hampapur and Hampapur
2 disclose tracking movements of an object. Appellants do not sufficiently
differentiate tracking (and cross correlating) movements of an object over
time and tracking and cross-correlating "events." In both cases, "events" (or
movements of an object) are tracked and cross-correlated (i.e., monitored
over time).
Claim 23 recites adding a new type of sensor into the surveillance
system. Appellants argue that the Examiner finds Hampapur fails to teach or
suggest "incorporating new technologies and adding a new type of sensor
into a surveillance system" and "fails to show the addition of new
technologies at all." App. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner. See, e.g., Ans. 5.
For example, as previously discussed, Hampapur discloses the use of various
"technologies" including "directional microphones," "infrared sensors," and
"other type[ s of] sensors" (Hampapur i-f 23), to name a few. Appellants do
5
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
not point out substantive differences between any of the "technologies" or
"sensors" disclosed by Hampapur (as indicated above) and the claimed
"technologies" or "sensors."
Appellants argue that Hampapur fails to disclose or suggest an event
browser configured to depict a user region of interest, an icon representing
an object of interest, and a motion trajectory taken by the object that
intersects the user region of interest, as recited in claim 24. App. Br. 14--15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the reasons set
forth by the Examiner. Ans. 5---6.
For example, Hampapur discloses a "monitored space" (i.e., depicting
a "user region of interest"), images of "targets moving across the monitored
space" (i.e., an icon representing an object of interest), and "detect[ing] and
track[ing] all objects moving in the ... fields of views" (i.e., motion
trajectory taken by the object in the "region of interest" or field of view in
the monitored space). See, e.g., Hampapuri-fi-f 35, 38, 39.
Appellants do not provide additional arguments in support of claims
21, 22, 25 and 26. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8 and 21-
26.
SUMMARY
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 21-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hampapur and Hampapur 2.
6
Appeal 2016-001056
Application 11/455,251
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7