Ex Parte Nagata et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 4, 2018

13820407 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 4, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/820,407 03/01/2013 Kazumi Nagata
22850 7590 09/06/2018
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
412823US2PCT 4135
EXAMINER
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/06/2018 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
OBLONPAT@OBLON.COM
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAZUMI NAGATA, T AKAAKI ENOHARA, KEN JI BABA,
SHUHEI NODA, and NO BUT AKA NISHIMURA
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Pa tent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 20, 21, 23-31, and33-38, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1-19, 22, and 32 have been cancelled.
We affrrm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as "Kabushiki Kaisha
Toshiba." Br. 1. "Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba" is the Applicant for the
instant patent application. Bib. Data Sheet.
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to sensing a predetermined
space's state captured by an image based on a mask region and a detection
region of the image. Spec., Abstract, 2:21-33. Claim 20, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
20. An image sensor system comprising:
an image capturing unit that captures an image of a
predetermined space;
an image acquiring unit that acquires the image captured
by the image capturing unit;
a mask region deriving unit that derives, by using the
image acquired by the image acquiring unit, a mask region not
to be sensed from the image;
a detection region deriving unit that derives, by using the
image acquired by the image acquiring unit, a detection region
as a sensing target from the image;
a retaining unit that retains the mask region and the
detection region as setting information;
a sensing unit that senses a state of the space from the
image acquired by the image acquiring unit based on the setting
information retained in the retaining unit; and
an action acquiring unit that acquires a feature amount of
each region of the image, corresponding to a numerical value of
an action content of a person in the space, from an image within
a predetermined period acquired by the image acquiring unit,
wherein
the action acquiring unit calculates an action amount in
each region by identifying the action content of the person in
the space from the feature amount, and calculates an occurrence
frequency of each action, and
2
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
the detection region deriving unit derives a frrst region
based on the occurrence frequency, classifies the frrst region for
every predetermined type based on content of the action
amount, and determines the classified frrst region as the
detection region classified for every predetermined type.
Claims 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 30, 31, and35-38 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Sablak (WO 2011/002775
Al, published Jan. 6, 2011) and Ueno et al. (US 2003/0117279 Al,
published June 26, 2003). See Final Act. 4--15.
Claims 23, 24, 27, 33, and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Sablak, Ueno, and Weinmann et al. (US
2010/0214411 Al, published Aug. 26, 2010). See Final Act. 16-17.
Claim 29 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
unpatentable over Sablak, Ueno, and Takano et al. (US 5,850,254, issued
Dec. 15, 1998). See Final Act. 17-18.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Brief ("Br."
filed June 12, 2017) for Appellants' positions; the Final Office Action
("Final Act." mailed Oct. 4, 2016) and Examiner's Answer ("Ans." mailed
Aug. 18, 2017) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner;
and the Specification ("Spec." filed Mar. 1, 2013). Only those arguments
actually made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments that Appellants did not make in the Brief have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2016).
2 All rejections areunderthe provisions of35 U.S.C. in effect before the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of2011 ("pre-AIA").
Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting the Examiner's obviousness rejection relies
principally on Sablak for teaching many of the recited elements of claim 20.
Final Act. 4---6. In particular, the Examiner fmds Sablak teaches an action
acquiring unit that "acquires a feature amount of each region of the image,
corresponding to a numerical value of an action content of a person in the
space, ... [ and] calculates an action amount in each region by identifying
the action content of the person in the space from the feature amount"
(hereinafter "the action acquiring unit limitation"), as recited in claim 20.
Final Act. 5 (citing Sablak ,r,r 35, 45, 72, 81); Ans. 17.
Appellants assert Sablak's video surveillance system tracks a motion
of objects in a region, and creates a motion density map to identify areas of
interest. Br. 4 ( citing Sablak ,r 72; Fig. 6). Appellants further assert Sablak
teaches distinguishing between a motion of two objects, id. at 5, but argues
Sablak does not teach the action acquiring unit limitation, id. at 4--5. In
particular, Appellants argue Sablak does not calculate action content. Id. at
5.
We construe the recited terms of the action acquiring unit limitation of
claim 20 including "action content," "feature amount," and "action amount."
Claim construction is an issue of law that is reviewed de nova. Cordis Corp.
v. Boston Scientific Corp., 561 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009). We give
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
Specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
The Specification is not a model of clarity regarding these recited
terms. Notably, the Specification discloses the term "feature amount" as
4
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
"corresponding to a numerical value of an action of the person .... Herein,
the feature amount is, for example, an action amount." Spec. 12:7-9. The
action acquiring unit limitation, however, recites no such identity between
the feature amount and action amount, but instead calculates an action
amount using the feature amount. Moreover, the Specification discloses the
term "action amount" as being calculated using action contents obtained
from an accumulative differential image. Spec. 12:28-31. The
Specification, however, further discloses the accumulative differential image
is generated using an action amount. Spec. 12:12-17 (disclosing "when the
action amount is acquired ... , a difference (differential image) between the
image is extracted ... , thereby generating an accumulative differential
image."). The Specification further discloses the term "action content" as
being identified from a feature amount using an identification model.
Spec. 12:25-28. Nevertheless, although the Specification does not explicitly
define these recited terms, or set forth a clear relationship or delineation
between these recited terms, the Specification informs our understanding of
the recited terms.
Each of the recited terms is a compound term with no ordinary
meaning apart from the ordinary meaning of the individual words that make
up the compound terms. We, therefore, construe the recited terms in
accordance with their ordinary meanings. Notably, the term "action" is
defined as "[a] movement," THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE
ENGLISH LANGUAGE 17 (n. def. 3) (3rd ed. 1992); the term "content" is
defined as "something contained," id. at 407 ( n. def. 1 ); the term "amount" is
defined as a"[ q]uantity," id. at 62 (n. def. 5); and the term "feature" is
defined as "a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality, or characteristic," id.
5
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
at 668 (n. def. 2). Each of these ordinary meanings corresponds with the
description of the invention in the Specification. See In re Smith Int' l, Inc.,
871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Therefore, undertheirbroadest
reasonable interpretation, the term "action content" encompasses the
movement of a particular person or thing, or in a particular area, the term
"action amount" encompasses a quantity of movement, and the term "feature
amount" encompasses a quantity of an aspect, quality, or characteristic,
which may include, but is not limited to, action (see Spec. 12:7-9).
Turning to Appellants' contentions, we see no error in the Examiner's
fmding that Sablak teaches action content. Final Act. 5 ( citing Sablak ,r,r 35,
45, 72, and81); Ans. 17. Sablakis generally directed to a video surveillance
system. Sablak, Abstract. Sablak's video surveillance system uses video
input to create a motion density map based on movements of people within a
region. Id. ,r 19. Sablak's motion density map is created by continuously
updating motion pixels over a period of time, id. ,r 69, such as by using an
averaging function between a number of video frames, id. ,r,r 36, 70-71.
Thus, despite Appellants' argumentto the contrary, Br. 4, 6, Sablak's
motion density map at least suggests identifying movement of a particular
person or in a particular area ( the recited "action content") from an image.
Sablak's system further selects the densest areas of the motion density
map as possible areas of interest using specified area thresholds. Sablak
,r 72; Fig. 6. Thus, contrary to Appellants' arguments that Sablak does not
teach or suggest the action acquiring unit limitation, Br. 4--5, Sablak at least
suggests acquiring aspect, quality, or characteristic quantities (the claimed
"feature amount") of each area of interest ( the claimed "region") of a video
image that corresponds to a numerical value of a movement ( the claimed
6
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
"action content") of a person in the space, and calculating densest areas ( the
claimed "action amount") in each area of interest by identifying the motion
density map of a person in a space from the acquired quantities of shapes.
The Examiner further finds, although Sablak teaches determining an
occurrence ofan action in an image, Final Act. 5 (citing Sablak ,r,r 35, 45,
72, 81 ), Sablak does not teach calculating an occurrence frequency of each
action, id. Moreover, the Examiner fmds, although Sablak teaches deriving
a frrst region in the image, id. (citing Sablak ,r,r 35, 45, 72, 81), Sablak does
not teach such deriving is based on the occurrence frequency, id. at 5---6.
The Examiner, however, cites Ueno for teaching this limited feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 6 ( citing Ueno ,r,r
78, 80, 81; Fig. 3).
We see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Ueno merely for this
limited purpose. Therefore, Appellants' argument that Ueno obtains no
information from an image, much less derives a region in an image from an
occurrence frequency, Br. 5, is unpersuasive where, as here, the rejection is
not based solely on Ueno, but rather on the collective teachings of Sablak
and Ueno---the former obtaining information from an image such as
deriving a frrst region in the image. Therefore, Appellants' arguments
regarding Ueno' s individual shortcomings in this regard do not show
nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited
references' collective teachings. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Nor do we fmd availing Appellants' contention that
[ o ]ne skilled in the art would also not combine Sablak and
Ueno to obtain the system of claim 20 or the apparatus of claim
30 since Sablak is based on video surveillance while Ueno is
7
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
Br. 6.
based upon motion detectors and specifically does not use
cameras. The use of a camera is not mentioned anywhere in
Ueno .... The systems ofSablak and Ueno are designed
differently, function differently, and will not work together
based upon imaging.
The test of obviousness is not whether one reference can be bodily
inserted into another, but, "[r ]ather, the test is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art," In
re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 425 (CCPA 1981), who is a person of ordinary
creativity and not an automaton, KSR Int' 1 Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 421 (2007), and whose inferences and creative steps we may consider,
id. at 418. On this record, we see no reason why combining Sablak' s action
amount calculations from captured images with Ueno' s occurrence
frequency calculation for each action would have been "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at419); see also Keller, 642 F.2dat 425 ("To justify
combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary
that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the
device shown in the other.").
The arguments presented by Appellants do not persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 20. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BP AI
2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of
(1) independent claim 20; (2) independent claims 30, 37, and 38, which are
argued relying on the arguments made for claim 20 (see Br. 4--8); and
(3) claims 21, 23-29, 31, and33-36, which depend, directly or indirectly,
8
Appeal2018-000920
Application 13/820,407
from claims 20 and 30, and were not separately argued with particularity
(see id. at 8).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 20, 21, 23-31, and 33-38
under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 20, 21, 23-31, and33-38 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 ). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(±), 4I.52(b).
AFFIRMED
9