Alpine Electronics, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2022

2021001911 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2022)

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. 16/152,723 10/05/2018 Shigeo Aoyagi 9333-872 IWP17047-US 2501 74989 7590 03/15/2022 Crowell/ALPS ALPINE CO., LTD., P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER LUO, KATE H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER OPQA MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2022 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 SHIGEO AOYAGI, KENICHIRO FUJITA, and YOSUKE TATE ________________ Appeal 2021-001911 Application 16/152,723 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JASON J. CHUNG, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to using a camera mounted on an unmanned aerial vehicle to capture images of an overhead line at a high altitude. Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Alpine Electronics, Inc. is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001911 Application 16/152,723 2 1. An overhead line image capturing system that captures images of an overhead line, the overhead line image capturing system comprising: an unmanned aerial vehicle; a camera mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle; and a hardware controller comprising a processor that is mounted on the unmanned aerial vehicle and that is configured to: detect an overhead line; and automatically navigate the unmanned aerial vehicle, wherein a distance to a focal plane where the camera is in focus is fixable, and wherein the controller is configured to automatically navigate the unmanned aerial vehicle so as to move along the overhead line between two adjacent towers while keeping a distance with respect to the overhead line detected by the controller to be constant at a predetermined distance when capturing images of the overhead line between two adjacent towers with the camera. Appeal Br. 12 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).2 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Cruyningen (US 2018/0032088 A1; provisional application 62/126,861 filed on Mar. 2, 2015) and Kimoto (JP2005253189 A; published Sept. 15, 2005). Final Act. 4-12. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of van Cruyningen, Kimoto, and 2 Claim 1 states “detect an overhead line.” In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether claim 1 should state “detect the overhead line” instead to give antecedence to the preamble. Appeal 2021-001911 Application 16/152,723 3 Rozenberg (US 2018/0373136 A1; PCT filed Nov. 1, 2016). Final Act. 12- 13. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds van Cruyningen teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle inspecting the towers, conductors, and wires, but maintain a standoff distance no closer than 6 meters, which the Examiner maps to the italicized limitation on page 2 above. Ans. 4-5, 16-17 (citing van Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80, 93, Figs. 1, 4); Final Act. 3, 5-6 (citing van Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80, 93, Figs. 1, 4, abstract). Appellant argues van Cruyningen merely teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle inspecting a tower and maintaining a relatively constant standoff distance when capturing images of a tower, but fails to teach keeping a distance with respect to the overhead line between two adjacent towers to be constant. Appeal Br. 4-5 (citing van Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80); Reply Br. 4-5. We disagree with Appellant. As an initial matter, Appellant takes van Cruyningen out of context. Although van Cruyningen teaches maintaining a relatively constant standoff distance from the tower (see van Cruyningen ¶ 74), van Cruyningen also states that “[t]owers 10 and 11 support insulators 14 that in turn support phase conductors 12 . . . [and] also support shield wires 16 . . . [and] [t]he inspection resolution and safety requirements determine standoff distance 50.” See van Cruyningen ¶ 93. Therefore, van Cruyningen at least suggests maintaining a standoff distance from phase conductors 12 and shield wires 16 while van Cruyningen’s unmanned aerial vehicle is on its flight path. van Appeal 2021-001911 Application 16/152,723 4 Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80, 93, Figs. 1, 4 (cited at Ans. 4-5; Final Act. 5-6). Furthermore, van Cruyningen teaches an unmanned aerial vehicle with a camera inspecting the towers (i.e., two adjacent towers), conductors, and wires, and maintains a standoff distance no closer than 6 meters and no further than 12 meters (i.e., between 6m and 12m at least suggests “to be constant at a predetermined distance when capturing images of the overhead line between two adjacent towers with a camera”) while the vehicle is on its flight path, which teaches or suggests “move along the overhead line between two adjacent towers while keeping a distance with respect to the overhead line detected by the controller to be constant at a predetermined distance when capturing images of the overhead line between two adjacent towers with the camera,” recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claim 11). Ans. 4-5, 16-17 (citing van Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80, 93, Figs. 1, 4); Final Act. 3, 5-6 (citing van Cruyningen ¶¶ 74, 80, 93, Figs. 1, 4, abstract); see also van Cruyningen ¶ 73 (stating that the maximum standoff distance is about 12m). Appellant does not argue claims 1 and 11 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 3-5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 11; and (2) dependent claims 2- 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-001911 Application 16/152,723 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12 103 van Cruyningen, Kimoto 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-12 3, 6, 8 103 van Cruyningen, Kimoto, Rozenberg 3, 6, 8 Overall Outcome 1-12