Ex Parte Ebling et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612922229 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/922,229 09/13/2010 278 7590 03/01/2016 MICHAEL J, STRIKER 103 EAST NECK ROAD HUNTINGTON, NY 11743 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Julia Ebling 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. 4917 8966 EXAMINER REN, ZHUBING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): striker@strikerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JULIA EBLING, CHRISTOF KRUEGER, and JAN KARL W ARZELHAN Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 1 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4 and 8-13, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Robert Bosch GmbH as the Real Party in Interest. (Appeal Br. 2.) 2 Claims 2 and 5-7 were cancelled. (Appeal Br. 21.) Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 Invention Appellants' invention concerns counting objects in a surveillance region. When an object passes completely through the counting section of the surveillance region, an object counter is increased by one counting value. A surveillance camera records the surveillance region and outputs an image data stream of the surveillance region. An extraction module extracts moving image regions from the image data stream. The moving image regions represent the whole or partial objects to be counted. The evaluation is carried out on an image-by-image basis, and the object counter is increased by a partial value for each image evaluated. If an object passes completely through the counting section, the accumulation of all the partial values form the counting value. The partial values added to the object counter in performing image-by-image observations of one object moving through the counting area thus in total increase the object counter by one. (Spec. p. 1, 11. 7-15; p. 2, 1. 26-p. 3, 1. 20; p. 4, 11. 8-26; p. 10, 11. 16-18.) Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below, with key limitations emphasized: 1. A device (1) for counting objects in a surveillance reg10n, compnsmg a counting module (9), wherein the counting module includes an object counter that is increased by one counting value, on average, when one of the objects, as the object to be counted, completely passes through a counting section ( 6) in a counting direction ( 4 ), the counting section ( 6) defining a length that the corresponding object must cover between entering and exiting a region of an image in order to be counted, at least one surveillance camera (2) for recording the surveillance region, wherein the surveillance camera (2) outputs an image data stream of the surveillance region, 2 Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 an extraction module (10), including a flow module (11) for determining an optical flow field having flow vectors for extracting moving image regions in a current image of the image data stream, wherein the moving image regions represent the objects or segments thereof, and an estimating module ( 14) for estimating a subsection of the length that the corresponding object to be counted has covered in the current image depending on the direction of motion or velocity of the corresponding moving image region; wherein the counting module (9) increases the object counter (9) by a partial value for each current image for one of the moving image regions (3), a direction of motion thereof corresponding to the counting direction ( 4) and thus representing a potential object to be counted, or a segment thereof, wherein the partial value is less than the counting value, wherein the subsection is estimated by projecting the flow vectors onto the counting direction (4) and/or the counting section ( 6), and wherein a size of the partial value is determined depending on the subsection covered and/or a size of the segment of the object to be counted. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato et al. (US 5,574,762 A; Nov. 12, 1996) ("Sato") and Conrad et al. (US 5,465,115 A; Nov. 7, 1995) ("Conrad"). (Final Act. 3-10.) The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sato, Conrad and Pavlidis et al. (US 2003/0053659 Al; Mar. 20, 2003). (Final Action 10.) 3 Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 Issue Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Conrad discloses the claim limitation "the counting module (9) increases the object counter ... by a partial value for each current image for one of the moving image regions (3)" where "the partial value is less than the counting value"? We address only this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Sato teaches the method of claim 1, with the exception of certain limitations taught by Conrad, including the disputed limitations. (Final Action 5.) Conrad relates to a video traffic monitor for counting people using video imaging. A window of an image frame is subdivided into gates, and an analysis of the contents of the gates is performed in order to detect and count people moving through the window area in the image frame. (Conrad Abstract, 5:4-- 20.) The Examiner finds the increase of a counter value by a partial value to be taught in Conrad's determination of which gates in the window are occupied, and determining how many people are represented by those occupied gates. (Final Action 5---6; Answer 10-11.) When a non-integral number results from that determination, e.g. 2.5, then that result is rounded up, e.g., from 2.5 to 3. (Conrad 12:55-57.) The Examiner finds this teaches or suggests the claimed limitation of a partial value added to the counter value. (Final Action 5---6; Answer 10-11.) 4 Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 As the Examiner finds, Figure 14 of Conrad shows how the number of people present in the window of an image frame is determined using "person blocks." (Answer 11.) Contiguous gates which are occupied are collected into person blocks. (Answer 11; Conrad 12:18-22.) When a person block is identified, the width (in gates) of the person block is used to determine how many people are in the person block. (Conrad 12:38--40.) If the person block width is greater than MAXPERSONWIDTH, (i.e., is too large for the person block to be considered one person), the person block width is divided by MAXPERSONWIDTH to determine how many people should be counted for that person block. (Answer 11; Conrad 7:62----67, 12:51-57.) If the result is a fraction, the number of people in the block is rounded up, e.g. from 2.5 to 3, to give a PERSON_COUNT of 3. (Final Action 6; Answer 11; Conrad 12:55-57.) PERSON_COUNT is used to determine, when a person block shrinks or disappears, how many people have left the person block or the size of the person block that has passed through the window. (Conrad 13:13-23.) The Examiner finds that the calculation of PERSON_ COUNT by rounding to an integer teaches the disputed limitation of increasing the object counter by a partial value, less than a counting value: "the number 0.5 (e.g. partial value as claimed) has been added and determined by how many gates that have been covered by the moving persons." (Answer 11.) However, we agree with Appellants that what is described in Conrad does not teach or suggest increasing an object counter by a partial value for each current image. (Appeal Br. 15-16.) Conrad's PERSON_COUNT is calculated anew for each image. (Conrad Fig. 14, 12:38-57.) PERSON_COUNT for each image is used to determine, how many people 5 Appeal2014-004357 Application 12/922,229 have left the person block or the size of the person block that has passed through the window. (Conrad 13:13-23.) Only when a calculated PERSON_COUNT indicates that people have passed through the window, which may be after several image cycles of scanning person blocks, is an increment equal to the number of people calculated to have left made in Conrad's object counter ("People Count"). (Id. at Fig. 15, 12:58-13:34.) Thus, Conrad does not teach a partial increment for each current image. Thus, we agree with the Appellants that the Conrad reference does not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1, commensurately recited in independent claim 11. Dependent claims 3, 4, 8-10, 12, and 13 include this limitation due to their dependence from claims 1 and 11, and we likewise do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, and 8-13 is reversed. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation