Ex Parte Harrington et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

13646860 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
13/646,860 10/08/2012 Nick Robert Harrington 12612 1653
27752 7590 12/19/2016
THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY
Global IP Services
Central Building, C9
One Procter and Gamble Plaza
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
EXAMINER
NAKHJAVAN, SHERVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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):
centraldocket. im @ pg. com
pair_pg @ firsttofile. com
mayer.jk @ pg. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICK ROBERT HARRINGTON, ROBB OLSEN,
DAVID MATSUMOTO, and HYI SUNG HWANG
Appeal 2015-007722
Application 13/646,860
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1—20, which are all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “systems and methods for providing a
video analysis and specifically to utilizing emotional state data of a subject
in a video and providing an interface to convey that data.” Spec. 1:4—6.
Appeal 2015-007722
Application 13/646,860
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim l1 is reproduced below for
reference:
1. A system for performing video analysis, comprising:
a memory component that stores logic that, when
executed by the system, causes the system to perform at least
the following:
receive video content of a subject;
identify a mannerism of the subject at a point in
time in the video content;
determine an emotional state associated with the
mannerism;
receive a file that correlates the mannerism with
the point in time; and
provide a user interface that includes the video
content with data from the file, such that the mannerism is
provided with the data.
References and Rejections
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bathiche (US 2012/0324491 Al; Dec. 20, 2012).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because Bathiche “is silent with regard to the display of video of a subject
with data from a file correlating a mannerism of that subject with a point in
time of the video of the subject.” Br. 3. Particularly, Appellants contend
that Bathiche “appears to relate to the combination of video of the original
work together with video of a viewer of that work. No mention is made of
1 Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may
wish to determine if claim 1 is structured as a single means claim and,
therefore, not compliant with 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See In re
Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
2
Appeal 2015-007722
Application 13/646,860
the concurrent display of data related to the mannerisms of the subjects of
the video,” and therefore “[t]he reference fails to disclose the presentation of
video of a subject with data related to the mannerisms of the subject of the
displayed video.” Id. at 4 (referring to Bathiche 146).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions (see Final Act. 2—17; Ans. 15—16) as our own, and
we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that Bathiche correlates a mannerism of
a subject with a point in time of a video of the subject, as required by claim
1, because Bathiche discloses a system that records a user and generates an
“emotional response profile” that “indexes that viewer’s emotional
expressions and behavioral displays as a function of a time position.”
Bathiche ^ 24; Final Act. 5—6 (citing Bathiche Figs. 1, 2A). Further, the
Examiner finds, in the Answer, that “the claim language does not require the
[argued] feature ‘concurrent,’” and Bathiche “discloses the ‘providing a user
interface that includes the video content (step 222) with data from the file,
such that the mannerism is provided with data step (216)’.” Ans. 16 (citing
Bathiche Fig. 2A, 146). We agree.
Bathiche generates “a viewer reaction video clip comprising a
particular viewer’s emotional, physical, and/or behavioral response to the
video content item, as expressed by a human affect display recorded by a
video viewing environment sensor.” Bathiche 146. These video clips “may
be stored with and/or presented concurrently with a related portion of the
video item, so that a requesting viewer may view the video item and the
emotional reaction of the recorded viewer to the video item.” Id.; see also
3
Appeal 2015-007722
Application 13/646,860
Bathiche 132 (“the aggregated profile acts as a user interface element that
controls video content presentation”).
We find Bathiche’s disclosure of presenting selected video content,
user reaction video clips, and other user reaction data (such as a graphical
depiction of the emotional response profile)2 is tantamount to a system that
“provide[s] a user interface that includes the video content with data from
the file, such that the mannerism is provided with the data,” as recited by
claim 1. See Fig. 2A; see also Bathiche Fig. 2B; 148, 52.
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bathiche
anticipates the limitations of independent claim 1. Appellants present
similar arguments regarding patentability of independent claims 8 and 15,
which we find similarly unpersuasive. See Br. 4—6. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims, and the claims
dependent thereon, which are not separately argued. See Br. 6.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
2 We note claim 1 does not limit the type or properties of the recited “data
from the file.”
4