Ex Parte Sternberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 25, 201712946758 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 12/946,758 11/15/2010 Stanley R. Sternberg 15414-015 1579 80711 7590 09/25/2017 BGL/Ann Arbor 524 South Main Street Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 EXAMINER MUNG, ON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte STANLEY R. STERNBERG, JOHN W. LENNINGTON, DAVID L. McCUBBREY, and ALI M. MUSTAFA ____________________ Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,7581 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11–19, 21, 22, and 24. Appellants have canceled claims 4, 5, 8–10, 20, and 23. App. Br. 16, 18, 20. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Pixel Velocity as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to “tracking an object through an environment across multiple cameras in the surveillance field.” Spec. ¶ 2. In a disclosed embodiment, visual data representing a physical environment is collected from a plurality of cameras and processed, and a model of the environment is constructed. Spec. ¶ 10. The model includes static (non-moving) object components (e.g., structures of a building) as well as dynamic (moving) object components (e.g., escalators, doors, trees moving in the wind). Spec. ¶ 14. According to Appellants, modeling dynamic (moving) object components prevents unintentionally tracking and wasting resources on an object that in reality is part of the environment. Spec. ¶ 14; App. Br. 6–7. Further, the processed visual data and the model are compared to cooperatively track and determine the location of the subject in the environment. Spec. ¶¶ 10, 21. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A method for tracking a subject through an environment comprising: collecting visual data representing a physical environment and a subject to be tracked in the environment from a plurality of cameras; constructing a programmatic model of the layout of the physical environment from the visual data, wherein the model is a virtual description of object components of the environment, the object components including both static components of the environment and dynamic components of the environment, wherein the subject to be tracked is not part of the object components of the environment; cooperatively, tracking the subject in the environment with the constructed model, components of the model, and processed visual data, wherein cooperatively tracking the subject comprises comparing Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 3 the visual data to the programmatic model to determine the location of the subject. The Examiner’s Rejections 1. Claims 1–3, 13, 15–19, 21, 22, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arpa et al. (US 2003/0085992 A1; May 8, 2003) (“Arpa”) and Nemethy et al. (US 2008/0074494 A1; Mar. 27, 2008) (“Nemethy”). Final Act. 3–9. 2. Claims 6, 7, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arpa, Nemethy, and Ettinger et al. (US 2005/0073585 A1; Apr. 7, 2005) (“Ettinger”). Final Act. 9–13. ANALYSIS2 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Arpa teaches, inter alia, constructing a programmatic model of the layout of the physical environment as claimed. App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 1–3. In particular, Appellants assert the claimed programmatic model includes both static components (e.g., hallways, fixed furniture) and dynamic components (e.g., doors that open and close), whereas Arpa only models static components (i.e., dynamic components are not included in Arpa’s programmatic model). App. Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 1–2. According to Appellants, by including dynamic components (other than the subject to be tracked) in the 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed April 22, 2016 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 16, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 23, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed June 26, 2015 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 4 programmatic model, computing resources may be saved by not tracking all dynamic objects. App. Br. 6–7. By contrast, Appellants argue “Arpa tracks all moving objects and does not discern moving (or dynamic) background objects from moving objects that are intended to be tracked.” App. Br. 8, 11; Reply Br. 2. Additionally, Appellants indicate the purpose of constructing a model that includes both static and dynamic components (excluding the subject to be tracked) is to create a type of background scenery. App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 1. As an initial matter, “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Further, when construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, reading claim language in light of the Specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We are mindful, however, that limitations are not to be read into the claims from the Specification. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 1 requires a programmatic model of the layout/environment includes both static and dynamic components, but not the subject to be tracked. Further, claim 1 recites “cooperatively tracking the subject comprises comparing the visual data to the programmatic model to determine the location of the subject.” We note claim 1 does not require, inter alia, that dynamic components are to be treated as “background Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 5 scenery” or are precluded from being updated. Similarly, claim 1 is silent as to the computing resources necessary to perform the claimed method. Arpa is generally directed to “immersive surveillance wherein a remote user may monitor a scene using a variety of imagery sources that are rendered upon a three-dimensional model to provide a three-dimensional contextual view of the scene.” Arpa ¶ 12. Arpa teaches the three- dimensional model is “apriori [sic] generated as a wire frame or planar computer model.” Arpa ¶¶ 29, 31. Arpa describes creating the model using an outline model comprising the perimeter of a building and an outline of key areas such as corridors. Arpa ¶ 31. Arpa further describes adding planar surfaces (e.g., a wall) to the outline model using well-known shape modeling techniques. Arpa ¶ 33. Arpa contemplates that the planar surface may not be entirely planar and that “objects that are attached to the surface . . . may be defined as belonging to a single plane.” Arpa ¶ 33. Arpa provides an example of a heater being attached to a wall may be modeled as part of the planar surface. Arpa ¶ 33. Appellants do not dispute that the three-dimensional model in Arpa includes static components. With respect to the claimed dynamic components, Appellants’ Specification describes dynamic components as “objects or features of the environment that change such as escalator[] doors, trees moving in the wind, changing traffic lights, or any suitable object that may have slight changes.” Spec. ¶ 14. By modeling components attached to a wall as part of the overall planar surface, we agree with the Examiner that Arpa’s model also includes dynamic components. In addition to a heater being a dynamic component (i.e., an object that may have slight change, such as from a fan/blower, indicator lights, or user interface), Arpa’s Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 6 technique of modeling objects attached to the surface would be applicable as well to other dynamic objects (e.g., a light switch that could be in either an upward or downward position) commonly located on surfaces of buildings and other structures. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”). “Once the view of the model is generated, the model is coupled to the image rendering processor where the various video images from the cameras are warped into alignment with the model.” Arpa ¶ 29. At this point, the rendered view does not contain moving objects (i.e., subjects that are tracked). Arpa ¶ 35. When moving objects (i.e., subjects) are identified, icons representative of the objects are inserted into the rendered view “such that the security guard may identify movement within the scene.” Arpa ¶ 36. Accordingly, Arpa teaches that construction of the three-dimensional model is done prior to the process for identifying and tracking objects moving throughout the model. See Arpa, Fig. 3 (illustrating the model is constructed and combined with video imagery (308) prior to adding icons representative of moving objects to be tracked (i.e., the subject (314)). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Arpa teaches or reasonably suggests: constructing a programmatic model of the layout of the physical environment from the visual data, wherein the model is a virtual description of object components of the environment, the object components including both static components of the environment and dynamic components of the environment, Appeal 2017-005625 Application 12/946,758 7 wherein the subject to be tracked is not part of the object components of the environment, as recited in claim 1. Additionally, Appellants assert the cited prior art does not teach or suggest comparing visual data to the programmatic model to determine location of the subject being tracked because the prior art fails to teach constructing the claimed programmatic model comprising static and dynamic components. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3–4. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar reason, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 17 and 21, which recite similar limitations and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 13. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11–16, 18, 19, 22, and 24, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. App. Br. 14. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 6, 7, 11–19, 21, 22, and 24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation