Ex Parte Tu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 13, 2016

13308386 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/308,386 11130/2011
62204 7590 10/17/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING)
ATTN: Brandon, 59W - 105U
1 RIVER ROAD
SCHENECTADY, NY 12345
Peter Henry Tu
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
251009-1 (GELC:0072) 5326
EXAMINER
SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/17/2016 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):
vivian.brandon@ge.com
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER HENRY TU, MARK LEWIS GRABB, XIAOMING LIU,
TING YU, YI YAO, DASHAN GAO, and MING-CHING CHANG
Appeal2014-007856 1
Application 13/308,3862
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
February 14, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed July 8, 2014), and
the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 8, 2014) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 14, 2013).
2 Appellants identify General Electric Company as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention "relates generally to advertising and, in
some embodiments, to measuring or increasing the effectiveness of
interactive advertising" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 7, and 22 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A system to facilitate interactive advertising, the
system comprising:
an advertising display configured to provide an
advertisement to potential customers;
a camera configured to capture images of the potential
customers when the potential customers pass the advertising
display; and
an image processing system including a processor and a
memory having application instructions for execution by the
processor, the image processing system configured to execute the
application instructions to derive usage characteristics of the
potential customers with respect to the advertising display
through analysis of the captured images, wherein the usage
characteristics comprise an identification of potential customers
that have had multiple encounters with the advertising display.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-18 and 20---22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§102 (a), (e) as
anticipated by Sharma '036 (US 7,921,036 Bl, iss. Apr. 5, 2011).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma '036 and Sharma '650 (US 7,283,650 Bl, iss. Oct. 16, 2007).
2
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 7, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 because
Sharma '036 does not disclose "an image processing system ... configured
to ... derive usage characteristics of the potential customers with respect to
the advertising display ... wherein the usage characteristics comprise an
identification of potential customers that have had multiple encounters with
the advertising display," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in
claims 7 and 22 (App. Br. 6-10).
Sharma '036 is directed to a system for selectively displaying targeted
media, e.g., images, video, etc., on a display device, e.g., digital signage,
based on the automatic recognition of certain predefined characteristics
associated with people in the view of a camera or set of cameras
(Sharma '036, Abstract; col. 7, 1. 65---col. 8, 1. 3; col. 11, 11. 22-25).
Sharma '036 discloses that the system processes camera images to detect
people and extract salient demographic and behavioral features of the people
in the scene; the system then applies business rules, e.g., media selection
rules, to display media appropriate for the people in the scene (see, e.g., id.
at col. 11, 11. 26-31; col. 12, 11. 3-5), i.e., media customized to the audience
(see, e.g., id. at col. 6, 11. 61---67; col. 15, 11. 11-21). Sharma '036 discloses
that, in an exemplary embodiment, the system processes the video images,
capturing the facial images of the audience being exposed to the media so
that the media response of each person in the audience (e.g., viewing
duration, degree of attention, or emotional state) and, thus, the affinity of
various audience segments to a particular content, can be measured (see,
3
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
e.g., id. at col. 18, 11. 36-41; col. 6, 11. 61---67). Sharma '036 describes that
this same technology also can be used to measure changes in emotional state
and attention while the media are being played; this information, i.e., media
response, then may be fed back to the media control module and used to
modify the media selection rules so that the effectiveness of the media
selection is improved for the next cycle (see, e.g., id. at col. 7, 11. 30-40; col.
10, 11. 11-24; col. 15, 11. 11-21; col. 19, 11. 45--49).
In rejecting claims 1, 7, and 22 under § § 1 02 (a) and ( e), the Examiner
reasons that Sharma '036 discloses the argued limitation, including
identifying potential customers that have had multiple encounters with the
advertising display or adverting station because (1) Sharma '036 discloses
that the system captures potential customers' feedback, including changes in
potential customers' behavior and emotional state (Final Act. 16 (citing
Sharma '036, col. 6, 11. 61---67; Fig. 7)) and (2) in order to determine a
change in a customer's behavior and/or emotional state, "multiple
encounters with the advertising station must have occurred (i.e., at different
times) since data/information regarding the behavior and emotional state at
different time is needed to determine the change" (id.).
We cannot agree with the Examiner that changes in a customer's
response to an advertising display or advertising station can be detected only
if the customer encounters the display/station multiple times. As Appellants
point out, changes in a potential customer's response may occur during a
single encounter with an advertising station, e.g., a potential customer may
exhibit a first behavior or emotion upon first interacting with the advertising
station and then exhibit a second, different behavior or emotion immediately
following the interaction with the advertising station (App. Br. 8). Indeed,
4
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
Sharma '036 expressly contemplates this very situation, disclosing at
column 7, lines 35-37 that changes in a customer's emotional state and
attention can be measured "while the media is being played."
The Examiner further relies on column 21, lines 7--42 of Sharma '036
as disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 13, 17). But we find nothing
in that portion of Sharma '036 that discloses identifying "potential
customers that have had multiple encounters with the advertising display,"
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent
claims 7 and 22. Instead, Sharma '036 merely discloses an iterative learning
process in which the collective emotional state of an audience pool is
determined and used to identify an optimal set of media selection rules that
will steer the collective state of the audience pool toward a state that favors
the advertised product/services.
Responding to Appellants' arguments in the Answer, the Examiner
asserts that Appellants' arguments "appear to focus on a much narrower
view of what 'encounter' means, rather than the meaning within the light of
[Appellants'] specification" (Ans. 3). The Examiner notes that the
Specification discloses that "interacting with" or "merely passing by" are
two examples of "a potential customer encountering" (id. at 4 ). And the
Examiner reasons that "according to this, one person interacting with, or
passing by, two ads (even if at the same ad station at the same time)
constitutes two (i.e., multiple) encounters; and also two persons interacting
with, or passing by, one ad also constitutes two (i.e., multiple) encounters"
(id.; see also id. at 5 (the Examiner reasoning that an individual's interaction
with a first ad displayed may be a first encounter and displaying a different
5
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
ad may comprise another, subsequent encounter - the individual never
necessarily moving away)).
The difficulty with the Examiner's analysis is that the claims do not
recite identifying multiple encounters with "ads;" instead, the claims call for
identifying "potential customers that have had multiple encounters with the
advertising display" (claim 1) or "with the advertising station" (claims 7 and
22). We agree with Appellants that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand from the Specification, including the examples of an
"encounter" identified by the Examiner, that encountering an advertising
display/advertising station multiple times requires encountering the
advertising station a first time, leaving, and then returning to encounter the
advertising station a second time (Reply Br. 3). 3
The Examiner reiterates that Sharma '036 discloses modifying media
selection rules according to feedback, e.g., changes in the emotional state of
the audience toward the media content (Ans. 7 (citing Sharma '036, col. 19,
11. 45--49; col. 21, 11. 7--42). However, we agree with Appellants that this is
not the same as identifying potential customers that have had multiple
encounters with an advertising station or display (Reply Br. 4). A system
may modify media selection rules according to feedback from numerous,
different customers, none of whom has encountered the advertising display
multiple times (id.). Sharma '036 also expressly contemplates that the
system "can be used to measure the changes in emotional state and attention
3 Appellants' interpretation also is consistent with the ordinary and
customary meaning of the term "encounter," i.e., "a meeting with a person
or thing, esp[.] when casual or unexpected." See COLLINS ENGLISH
DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2014), http://www.thefreedictionary.com/encounter
(last visited Oct. 3, 2016).
6
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
while the media is being played" (Sharma '036, col. 7, 11. 35-37), and, thus
expressly contemplates that the system can capture and analyze a change in
the behavior or emotion of a potential customer during a single encounter
with the advertising station (see Reply Br. 4).
We find nothing in the cited portions of Sharma '036 that discloses
identifying potential customers that have had multiple encounters with the
advertising display or advertising station, as called for in independent
claims 1, 7, and 22. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection
of independent claims 1, 7, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. For the same
reason, we also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2---6, 8-18,
20, and 21, each of which ultimately depends from one of independent
claims 1 and 7.
Obviousness
Claim 19 depends from claim 7. The Examiner's rejection of claim 7
based on Sharma '650, in combination with Sharma '036, does not cure the
deficiency in the Examiner's rejection of claim 7 under§ 102, i.e.,
Sharma '650 does not disclose or suggest identifying potential customers
that have had multiple encounters with an advertising station. Therefore, we
do not sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
7
Appeal2014-007856
Application 13/308,386
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§§102 (a), (e) is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
REVERSED
8