Rapsodo Pte. Ltd.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 21, 20222021001368 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2022) 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. 15/961,697 04/24/2018 Kelvin Soon Keat Yeo R1422.10006US02 1083 97149 7590 03/21/2022 Maschoff Brennan 1389 Center Drive, Suite 300 Park City, UT 84098 EXAMINER MISTRY, ONEAL R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2664 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/21/2022 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): d@mabr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KELVIN SOON KEAT YEO, BATUHAN OKUR, and LODIYA RADHAKRISHNAN VIJAYANAND Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 Technology Center 2600 Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Rapsodo PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to determining flight characteristics of a moving object. Spec. ¶ 7. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: identifying a moving object, wherein at least a portion of the moving object is in a field of view of a camera; determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object; responsive to a determination of the particular time, triggering the camera to capture a plurality of images of the moving object while the object is in the field of view of the camera at the particular time, wherein at least a portion of a flight path of the moving object is in the field of view of the camera, wherein the flight path of the moving object includes an initial point of the moving object and a batting area; using the plurality of images, extrapolating one or more flight characteristics of the moving object to generate an extrapolation of the one or more flight characteristics of the moving object; measuring a speed of the moving object using a radar device; and verifying the one or more flight characteristics of the moving object based on the speed of the moving object. Appeal Br. 10 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES2 The Examiner relies on these references: 2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only. Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 3 Name Reference Date Kiraly US 2006/0008116 A1 Jan. 12, 2006 Ryan US 2012/0033855 A1 Feb. 9, 2012 Johnson US 2016/0306036 A1 Oct. 20, 2016 Perry US 2016/0307335 A1 Oct. 20, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kiraly, Ryan, and Johnson. Final Act. 4. Claims 4-8, 12-16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kiraly, Ryan, Johnson, and Perry. Final Act. 14. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Johnson teaches or suggests the disputed limitations: determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object, and responsive to a determination of the particular time, triggering the camera, as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kiraly teaches most of the limitations. Final Act. 4-5. Because Kiraly relates to golf, the Examiner relies on Ryan as teaching triggering a camera to capture images in the context of “a batting area” as claimed. Final Act. 5-6. The Examiner further finds Kiraly and Ryan do not explicitly disclose the “identifying” and “determining” limitations of claim 1, nor do Kiraly and Ryan teach triggering the camera “responsive to a determination of the particular time.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner relies on Johnson for teaching these limitations. Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 4 Specifically, the Examiner finds Johnson’s description of using radar to determine that a ball is in motion in a specific direction and subsequently using a camera to image the ball as it lands on a green teaches “identifying a moving object, wherein at least a portion of the moving object is in a field of view of a camera.” Final Act. 6 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 42-47, 50). The Examiner further finds Johnson’s description of using radar to detect an approaching ball, and then signaling the camera to begin imaging the ball teaches the claimed “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object,” and “responsive to a determination of the particular time.” Final Act. 6-7 (citing Johnson ¶¶ 42-47). Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “Johnson appears to teach a system that includes cameras, microphones, and a Doppler radar to cover a green and the approach to the green at a hole [on a golf course].” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Johnson ¶ 42) (reference numerals omitted) (bracketed material added). More specifically, Appellant argues Johnson “uses sound signals from the microphones to determine time of arrival difference for each microphone pair,” but “[t]here is no teaching in Johnson that the time of arrival is used to trigger the cameras to begin taking pictures.” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Johnson ¶ 47). According to Appellant, “calculating a landing position is not the same as ‘determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object,’ as recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant adds that “while paragraphs [0049]-[0050] of Johnson discuss the cameras, there is no teaching of determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object anywhere in Johnson.” Appeal Br. 8 (reference numerals omitted). Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 5 Appellant further asserts the Examiner relies on an unreasonably broad interpretation of “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object,” because the Examiner interprets this limitation as encompassing “anytime when the object is in the field of view [of a camera of imaging device].” Ans. 18-19. Specifically, the Examiner determines that “[o]ne of ordinary skill[] in the art would interpret that ‘a particular time’ can be anytime when the object is in the beginning or the end of the field of view and that the images should be captured when the moving object is in the field of view.” Ans. 19. We are not persuaded of error. We begin with claim interpretation. Appellant and Examiner dispute the scope of the limitation “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object,” and specifically, the scope of “a particular time.” The Examiner determines that “[o]ne of ordinary skill[] in the art would interpret that ‘a particular time’ can be anytime when the object is in the beginning or the end of the field of view and that the images should be captured when the moving object is in the field of view.” Ans. 19. Appellant argues the Examiner’s interpretation is unreasonably broad because “[t]he claims do not imply that the particular time can be anytime” and that the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the later recited limitation of “generat[ing] an extrapolation of the one or more flight characteristics of the moving object.” Reply Br. 2-3. According to Appellant, “an interpretation that suggests that the claimed particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object ‘can be anytime’ could remove the ‘extrapolation’ from the claims entirely.” Reply Br. 3. Although Appellant does not offer an explicit construction of its own, Appellant Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 6 asserts that “[i]nstead of and over[ly] ‘narrow interpretation’ by Appellants, the Examiner is interpreting the claims too broadly and not giving patentable weight to each and every future recited in the claims.” Reply Br. 3. When interpreting disputed claim terms, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the context of the specification. In re Smith, 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the summary section of the Appeal Brief, Appellant identifies Specification ¶¶ 30 and 68 and Figure 9, step 925 as supporting the disputed “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant’s Specification describes that “the camera 120 may be triggered to capture images while the moving object is within the field of view.” Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification further describes “the time in which the moving object is within the field of view of the camera 120 may be referred to as an optimal photograph timeframe.” Spec. ¶ 30. At paragraph 59, the Specification further describes “[a]t block 925, the optimal photograph time may be determined.” The Specification describes various ways in which the optimal photograph time can be determined, including (1) “based on the flight distance from the beginning of the flight of the moving object to a camera,” (2) “based on the moving object being within a field of view of the camera and within a region illuminated by an eliminating feature,” and (3) “based off of the moving object being detected on a pixel rate of the camera.” Spec. ¶ 68. From these examples, Appellant’s Specification makes clear that determining the optimal photograph time includes observing and/or analyzing the moving object to select an appropriate time to begin capturing images. Based on this description and consistent with the embodiments Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 7 described in the Specification, we interpret the phrase “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object,” to mean selecting a time to begin image capture based on observation of the flight of the moving object, and we further determine that the phrase at least encompasses the Specification examples of the various ways of determining the optimal photograph time. Applying this interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that prior art teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. As noted above, the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Kiraly and Johnson as teaching the disputed limitations. Kiraly relates to “a camera measurement system for determining the paths of objects in flight.” Kiraly ¶ 2. Kiraly describes a measurement system which includes a camera that captures images of objects in motion. Kiraly ¶ 22. The system calculates three-dimensional coordinates for each of the captured images, and determines ball flight characteristics using those calculated three-dimensional coordinates. Johnson describes “[s]ystems, methods, and media to track a golf ball to and on a green.” Johnson Abstract. More specifically, Johnson “relates to tracking a golf ball trajectory as it approaches the green, as well as ball positions and path from the green after landing.” Johnson ¶ 2. Johnson uses a combination of cameras and Doppler radar to track a golf ball as it travels from a shot on a golf hole toward the golf hole on the green. Johnson ¶¶ 3- 9. We agree with the Examiner that Johnson’s description that “cameras may be set up to take sequential stereoscopic images . . . [which] can be combined by using stereoscopic principles to determining the ball’s trajectory in three dimensions in world coordinates” teaches “identifying a Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 8 moving object, wherein at least a portion of the moving object is in a field of view of a camera.” We further agree with the Examiner that Johnson’s description of configuring the system to activate the camera to capture images of an incoming golf ball as it approaches teaches “determining a particular time to begin capturing images of the moving object.” As we noted above, this limitation means selecting a time to begin image capture based on observation of the flight of the moving object. In Johnson, the doppler radar is configured to detect an incoming ball, which causes the processor to activate the camera. Johnson ¶ 49 (“The processor may be guided by the detection of an incoming ball from the Doppler radar.”). Thus, Johnson selects a time to begin image capture (the time at which the incoming ball is detected by the Doppler radar) and it does so based on the observation of the flight of the ball (the Doppler radar detecting and tracking the approaching golf shot). Johnson ¶ 46 (“Doppler radar 100 detects and tracks an approaching golf shot 70.”). Moreover, Johnson’s detection of the incoming ball via Doppler radar is the cause of the triggering of the camera to begin image capture. As such, we agree that by causing the camera to begin image capture using its Doppler imaging, Johnson also teaches the disputed limitation of “responsive to a determination of the particular time, triggering the camera to capture a plurality of images of the moving object.”3 3 We further note that although we do not rely on this subject matter in sustaining the rejection, Kiraly also appears to teach the argued limitations. For example, Kiraly describes an “alternative method for triggering image capture.” Kiraly ¶ 91. There, Kiraly states that “[a] trigger portion 180 of the camera window frame 182 is utilized for monitoring when the golf ball Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 9 In sum, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Johnson and Kiraly teach or suggest the argued limitations. As a result, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Remaining Claims Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 9-11, 17-19 103 Kiraly, Ryan, Johnson 1-3, 9-11, 17-19 4-8, 12-16, 20 103 Kiraly, Ryan, Johnson, Perry 4-8, 12-16, 20 Overall Outcome 1-20 190 or golf club moves or comes into view.” Kiraly ¶ 91. Kiraly further teaches that “[o]nce an object image 192 is detected in the trigger field of view 180, the object 192 is analyzed to verify its speed, shape and direction of motion . . . [such that] a valid triggering event is declared and the image capturing process for tracking is initiated.” Kiraly ¶ 91. Appeal 2021-001368 Application 15/961,697 10 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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