Michael C. Mongeon et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 202013933194 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2020) 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. 13/933,194 07/02/2013 Michael C. Mongeon 20121019USNP- CNDT2986US01 1861 144578 7590 05/04/2020 FAY SHARPE LLP / CONDUENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 EXAMINER HASAN, MAINUL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2020 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): Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com USPTO@faysharpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL C. MONGEON, MATTHEW ADAM SHREVE, and ROBERT P. LOCE Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We refer to the Specification, filed September 23, 2015 (“Spec.”); Final Office Action, mailed September 26, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed August 1, 2017 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed May 9, 2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed June 28, 2018 (“Reply Br.”). 2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Conduent Business Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to systems and methods “to identify the leader of a group in a retail, restaurant, or queue-type setting (or virtually any setting) through recognition of payment gestures.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of monitoring a customer space comprising: obtaining visual data comprising image frames of the customer space over a period of time; generating feature models for members of at least one group within the customer space; analyzing the feature models to identify a payment gesture in at least one image frame; associating the payment gesture with a member of the at least one group based at least in part on the feature models; and designating a leader of the group as the member associated with the payment gesture; wherein the analyzing the feature models to identify a payment gesture includes detecting motion within at least one region of interest within the at least one image frame, creating a representation of the motion occurring within the at least one region of interest, and detecting the payment gesture based on the representation; and wherein the payment gesture includes tender of payment at a payment station within the customer space. Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 3 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sharma US 8,010,402 B1 Aug. 30, 2011 Libenson US 2013/0024267 A1 Jan. 24, 2013 REJECTION Claims 9–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 2– 4. Claims 1–6, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(l) as anticipated by Sharma. Final Act. 4–9 Claims 7, 8, and 10–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Sharma and Libenson. Final Act. 9– 19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). To the extent consistent with our analysis herein, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in: (1) the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4–19) and (2) the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–15) and concur with the Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 4 conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis. 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the obtaining visual data includes recording images with only an overhead camera, and wherein the designating a leader of the group as the member associated with the payment gesture is based solely on the payment gesture as identified in the images.” The Examiner finds Appellant’s Specification does not disclose the sole use of an overhead camera for obtaining visual data and using only that data to designate the leader by gesture. Final Act. 2–4. Claims 10–14 stand rejected on the same basis. Id. at 4. Appellant quotes the Specification and refers to a provisional application (US 61/694,650) for written description support. App. Br. 11; Spec ¶ 24. Appellant’s Specification reads as follows: At least one of cameras C1 or C2 is an overhead camera adapted to view a payment station, such as the region about a cash register 24 or card reader, from overhead to detect payment gestures. An exemplary method and device for detecting payment gestures is set forth in U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/694,650, filed Aug. 29, 2012, which is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Spec. ¶ 24. Appellant does not provide a specific citation within the provisional application. See App. Br. 1. We agree with the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument. Ans. 14–15. Specifically, we agree that “[t]here is no disclosure [in either the Specification or the provisional application] that the payment gesture is the ‘sole’ means of determining [the] group leader.” Id. at 15. Appellant Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 5 does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings with respect to the provisional application. See generally Reply Br. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9–14 as lacking written description support. 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Appellant argues the anticipation rejection based on claim 1, arguing that Sharma does not describe “designating a group leader based on a payment gesture in the manner set forth in the claims.” App. Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 2–4. We are not persuaded of error. Sharma describes the following: The same video can be analyzed to determine the group information whether some of the customers in the queue are family members or friends shopping together. Further facial expression analysis of the people in the group can also determine which person is the ‘leader’ (who takes the role of interacting with the cashier and makes the payment) of the group and estimate the shoppers’ overall emotional response during the transaction. Sharma 2:30–38 (emphasis added). Sharma further describes the following: It is one of the objectives of the fourth step of the processing to analyze the dynamic behavior of the tracked customers so that their shopping group membership-such as family, friends, etc.- and checkout behavior—such as interactions with products on checkout shelves or interactions with the cashier—can be recognized. This step generates the identified group information and the recognized checkout behavior information. Id. at 5:6–13. Sharma clearly describes analyzing gestures, which may be both facial gestures and interactions with the cashier as described above. Appellant Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 6 unpersuasively asserts that “Sharma et al. only teaches facial expression analysis for determining a group leader because it makes it clear that detecting interaction with the cashier (e.g. tender of payment) from the overhead camera is not required to designate a group leader.” Reply Br. 4. This is unpersuasive because Sharma clearly describes collecting both facial expression information and interactions with the cashier and determining which person is the leader. In view of the foregoing, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s argument, which we adopt (Ans. 7–12), we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, and 9 as anticipated by Sharma. 35 U.S.C. § 103 With respect to Appellant’s arguments regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 10–20 (Appeal Br. 9–10), we are unpersuaded of error for the reasons stated by the Examiner (Ans. 13), which Appellant does not persuasively rebut (see generally Reply Br.). Appeal 2018-007059 Application 13/933,194 7 DECISION SUMMARY We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1–20 as follows: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9–14 112(a) Written description 9–14 1–6, 9 102(a)(1) Sharma 1–6, 9 7, 8, 10–20 103(a) Sharma, Libenson 7, 8, 10–20 Overall Outcome: 1–20 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation