Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 11, 2016

12489667 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/489,667 0612312009
14824 7590 08/15/2016
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hui Cheng
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.
SRI15547 2053
EXAMINER
PULLIAM, CHRISTY ANN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUI CHENG, CHANGJIANG YAN, HARPREET
SINGH SA WHNEY, and FENG HAN
Appeal2015-002084
Application 12/489,667
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002084
Application 12/489,667
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to "providing a computational framework for
automated detection and recognition of events in video images" (Spec. i-f 3).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for creating a
histogram of oriented occurrences (H02), the method being
executed by at least one processor, comprising the steps of:
(a) detecting and tracking movement of a plurality of
entities in at least two or more images over space and time;
(b) designating one of the plurality of entities as a
reference entity;
( c) defining a local 2-dimensional ground plane
coordinate system centered on and oriented with respect to the
reference entity;
( d) partitioning the 2-dimensional ground plane into a
plurality of non-overlapping bins, the bins forming a histogram,
a bin tracking a number of occurrences of an entity class; and
( e) determining one or more interactions over space
and time between the tracked plurality of entities based on the
partitioning of the ground plane with the reference entity as the
frame of reference.
2
Appeal2015-002084
Application 12/489,667
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Stupp et al.
Obrador et al.
Yap et al.
Zhu et al.
US 2007/0179363 Al
US 2008/0025647 Al
US 2008/0044170 Al
US 2008/0069400 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Aug.2,2007
Jan. 31, 2008
Feb.21,2008
Mar. 20, 2008
Claims 1-5, 7, 15-17, 19, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Obrador and Yap.
Claims 6, 8-11, 18, and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Obrador, Yap, and Zhu.
Claims 12-14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Obrador, Yap, Zhu, and Stupp.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Obrador and Yap discloses all
the limitations of claim 1, including that Obrador discloses "(b) designating
one of the plurality of entities as a reference entity; ( c) defining a local 2-
dimensional ground plane coordinate system centered on and oriented with
respect to the reference entity" (Final Act. 1 4 ). Appellants contend:
[T]here is no distinct step outlined in any portion of Obrador
which ever designates a specific pixel as a "reference" pixel; let
alone designating an entity as a reference entity. Even more
fundamentally, labeling pixels by their color cannot be deemed
equivalent to performing the geometrical step of designating a
1 The Final Action dated December 3, 2013.
3
Appeal2015-002084
Application 12/489,667
reference entity for purposes of defining a 2-D ground plane
coordinate system, as anyone of ordinary skill in the art would
recogmze.
(App. Br. 12). We agree with Appellants.
Obrador describes associating a lexical color name with each of the
pixels in an image, and generating numerical data indicative of the extent of
each color in the image (Obrador i-f 29).
In one embodiment, the processing circuitry 14 may generate a
representation, such as a vector or histogram, including a
plurality of categories or bins and numerical data associated
therewith and corresponding to the lexical words associated
with the image. The numerical data may indicate the extent of
the respective characteristics present in respective images (e.g.,
indicate numbers of image forming elements of a given image
having characteristics of the associated lexical color names,
such as colors) in one implementation.
(Obrador i-f 29). In other words, Obrador creates a histogram indicating the
number of pixels of each color in an image. The Examiner finds:
Obrador teaches the formation of a histogram in paragraph
[0029], which is drawn on two-dimensional ground plane (that
is 2-D coordinate arrangement x-y, and a histogram is also
drawn designating a reference entity such as the reference
coordinate (0, 0), corresponding to x-y coordinates), Obrador,
therefore, teaches defining a local 2-D ground plane coordinate
system centered on and oriented with respect to the reference
entity.
(Ans. 4). Even if we were to agree with the Examiner's broad interpretation
that Obrador' s pixels meet the claim 1 limitation of "a plurality of entities"
(Final Act. 3), we disagree with the Examiner's finding quoted above
because the Examiner has not shown Obrador describes designating one of
the pixels as a reference entity and defining a two-dimensional ground plane
4
Appeal2015-002084
Application 12/489,667
coordinate system centered on the designated pixel. Rather, the Examiner
merely points out that a histogram can be represented in a two-dimensional
coordinate system with an origin at the coordinates (0, 0) (see Ans. 4).
Obrador does not disclose processing an image such that a pixel in the image
is designated as the origin of a coordinate system, where the coordinate
system is centered on the pixel. Obrador' s histogram merely represents data
about the pixels, and it is not a two-dimensional ground plane coordinate
system centered on one of the pixels itself.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 15 and 24 which
recited commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-14, 16-23, and
25 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 are
reversed.
REVERSED
5