Ex Parte Shi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2018

14791946 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/791,946 07/06/2015
153508 7590 08/02/2018
Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP/Magna
650 Trade Centre Way
Suite 200
KALAMAZOO, MI 49002-0402
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Bin Shi
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.
MAG04-P2597-423858 7284
EXAMINER
GREENE, JOSEPH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2018 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):
patent@honigman.com
tflory@honigman.com
asytsma@honigman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BIN SHI, GHANSHY AM RA THI,
SHARON ZIBMAN, TOM PEROVIC, NIKHIL GUPTA,
HILDA F ARAJI, and YONG ZHOU1
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and
JON J. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 2-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Magna Electronics Inc.,
Auburn Hills, Michigan.
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a system and method for
determining a classification relating to the interior of the vehicle" (Spec.
iT 2).
Independent claim 2, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
2. A method for calibrating a vehicular vision system,
said method comprising:
providing a camera at a vehicle, said camera having a
field of view;
capturing images with said camera;
acquiring a set of resultant images;
extracting information related to image features in the set
of resultant images;
acquiring a plurality of classifications;
determining a subset of coefficients;
for each classification, storing a classification vector of at
least one appropriate weight that corresponds to the determined
subset of coefficients;
wherein the determined subset of coefficients is
determined by processing sets of coefficients produced from a
selection of calibration images and determining a subset of
coefficients which acceptably discriminate between defined
classifications; and
wherein acquiring a set of resultant images comprises
limiting the dynamic range of acquired images to obtain
resultant images that comprise at least one region of interest,
which encompasses a region of the field of view that is less
than the field of view of said camera.
2
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
REJECTI0NS 2 and REFERENCES
The Examiner rejected claims 2-8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § I02(e) based upon the teachings of Sun (US 7,505,841 B2; Mar.
17, 2009).
The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, and 14--16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) based upon the teachings of Sun and Quaid (US 2006/0142657 Al;
June 29, 2006).
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
based upon the teachings of Sun and Breed (US 2007 /00896624 Al; Apr.
19, 2007).
The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) based upon
the teachings of Sun, Quaid, and Breed.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Claims 2-8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 21
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Sun discloses all the
claim limitations found in independent claims 2 and 18 and claims 3-8, 11,
12, 19, and 21 dependent therefrom (App. Br. 12-13). Particularly,
Appellants contend Sun does not disclose coefficients "produced from a
selection of calibration images," "determining the subset of coefficients by
processing sets of coefficients produced from a selection of calibration
2 Claims 2-21 were rejected under non-statutory obviousness-type double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US 9,077,962. Final
Act. 3--4. However, the Examiner withdrew this rejection as Appellants
filed a terminal disclaimer (Ans. 13). As such, this rejection is no longer
pending on appeal.
3
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
images and determining a subset of coefficients which acceptably
discriminate between defined classifications" (App. Br. 16), or "storing a
classification vector of at least one appropriate weight that corresponds to
the determined subset of coefficients" (App. Br. 17). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Final
Act. 5-10; Ans.14--16). Specifically, we note that cited references need not
recite the claim language ipsissimis verbis (see In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831,
832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("These elements must be arranged as in the claim
under review, but this is not an 'ipsissimis verbis' test.") (citations omitted);
Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("a reference can anticipate a claim even if it 'd[oes] not
expressly spell out' all the limitations arranged or combined as in the claim,
if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would 'at once envisage'
the claimed arrangement or combination.") (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d
676, 681 (CCPA 1962)). The Examiner's findings persuade us that Sun
discloses the contested claim limitations. That is, the broad language of the
claims allows a reading of Appellants' claims on Sun. For example,
Appellants' sub coefficients are commensurate with the vertical and
horizontal wavelet coefficients of Sun as Sun's coefficients are part of a
wavelet region of interest of a segmented area that is divided into a set of
wavelet areas (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 14; see Sun col. 6, 11. 50---67; col. 7, 11. 7-
19; col. 8, 11. 41--49). Appellants' paragraph 11 recites similar limitations
("Preferably, step (ii) comprises processing the resultant image with a two
dimensional complex discrete wavelet transform to produce a selected set of
coefficients related to features in the acquired resultant image and, in step
(iii), the previously determined set of image feature values comprises a set of
4
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
weights for each defined classification, the weights being multiplied with the
set of coefficients to produce a score for each defined classification, the
defined classification with the highest produced score being the
classification output in step (iv)").
We also agree with the Examiner that Sun's column 8, line 62 through
column 9, line 5, discloses classifications, each "storing a classification
vector of at least one appropriate weight that corresponds to the determined
subset of coefficients" as claimed ( Ans. 15 "the system classifies by
weighting values (coefficients) on the feature data that's associated with the
calibrations (the vectors) to produce classifications. Accordingly the
wavelets are a subset of the feature data"). Sun's column 9, lines 1-29, also
states using the "associated classifications to determine the network's
weighting values," choosing calibrations "so that the neural network
generates the expected classifications [ defined classifications] for the feature
data," and the classification system including "these calibrations in its
memory for use during normal operation of image classification" (Sun col.
9, 11. 25-31 ).
As we agree Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 2, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 2, independent claim 18
argued for the same reasons as claim 2 (App. Br. 20-21 ), and dependent
claims 3-8, 11, 12, 19, and 21 argued for substantially the same reasons as
the claim they depend from (App. Br. 19-20, 21-22).
5
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 9, 10, and 14-16
Independent claim 14 recites, inter alia: "providing occlusion
detection to detect an unacceptable occlusion at least partially occluding the
field of view of said camera." Claim 9 depends from claim 2 and recites a
similar limitation.
Appellants contend claims 9, 10, and 14--16 are not obvious over the
combination of Sun and Quaid (App. Br. 21-26). Particularly, Appellants
contend Quaid does not teach or suggest "providing occlusion detection to
detect an unacceptable occlusion at least partially occluding the field of view
of said camera" as recited in claims 9 and 14. (App. Br. 22-25).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings that "both the systems of
Sun and Quaid are directed towards interpreting an environment based on
cameras and that it would be obvious to modify the teachings of Sun to
utilize occlusion detection as taught by Quaid for the surgical device" (App.
Br. 24). Rather, Appellants contend, Sun is directed to a vision-based
occupant classification system for controlling an airbag deployment system
during a crash, whereas Quaid is directed to a surgical apparatus providing
haptic guidance to a user to limit user manipulation of a surgical device by
using a camera that optically detects an array of markers positioned on the
skin of a patient (id.). Therefore, Quaid detects the location of position
markers during a surgical procedure and not an environment of a vehicle, as
claimed (id.). Thus, Appellants assert, the Examiner is using impermissible
hindsight for the combination (App. Br. 24--25). Further, the modification to
Sun would leave Sun's system "incapable of detecting an occlusion at least
6
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
partially occluding the field of view of said camera" as Quaid teaches
detecting occlusions caused by dust, blood, tissue, bone debris, etc., at
markers during a surgical procedure, while Sun detects "occlusions of
substantial portions of a field of view of a camera ( e.g., when cargo/luggage
or an occupant's hand, arm, or other body portion" occludes the field of
view of the camera (App. Br. 25).
Paragraph 132 of Quaid states "the surgical system 10 is preferably
configured to alert a user if the detection device 41 is unable to detect the
tracker during the procedure (e.g., when the line of sight between the
detection device 41 . ... when reflectivity of the markers is occluded)"
( emphases added). Thus, as the Examiner finds, Quaid detects occlusions
within a field of view and provides an alert in response to the occlusion(s),
as claimed (Ans. 16-17). Appellants' claim language merely requires
detecting an occlusion ( claims 14, 9) and issuing an alert when an occlusion
is detected ( claim 14). Given this broad claim language, Appellants'
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim language. We
agree with the Examiner Quaid discloses these limitations, and therefore
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 14 and dependent
claims 9, 10, 15, and 16.
Claims 13, 17, and 20
Appellants separately argue dependent claims 13 and 20 asserting the
combination of Sun and Breed does not teach "wherein images of the set of
resultant images are acquired by obtaining a first image illuminated by
ambient light and a second image illuminated by ambient light and a second
frequency range of light and subtracting the first image from the second
image to obtain the resultant images" as claimed (App. Br. 28). Appellants
7
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
contend obtaining images illuminated by ambient light and one of the
images having a second frequency range is not taught or suggested by Breed,
which teaches "obtaining an image illuminated with an artificial means"
(App. Br. 29).
The Examiner finds Breed's paragraph 404 teaches this limitation:
"The same technique of subtracting an illuminated line of pixels from an
unilluminated line or pixels or vice versa can be applied to other cameras
wherein the entire image is either illuminated (by artificial means) or
unilluminated (with only natural light) and subtracted from the opposite type
of image" ( emphasis added) (Final Act. 13-14 ).
As the Examiner finds (Ans. 17) "[am]bient light means the light that
is already present in a scene, before any additional lighting is added. It
usually refers to natural light, either outdoors or coming through windows
etc. It can also mean artificial lights such as normal room lights"
(https://www.mediacollege.com/lighting/ambient/, last visited July 25,
2018). Appellants are reading too much into the claim language.
Appellants' Specification does not provide a definition of the term "ambient
light." Appellants' paragraph 32 states "the region of interest of the vehicle
interior illuminated with the ambient light in the vehicle" and paragraph 33
states the "image capture subsystem 28 activates auxiliary light source 32 to
illuminate the occupant seating portion of the vehicle seat with NIR [ near
infrared light such as LEDs] light, in addition to the ambient light." Thus,
Breed's "unilluminated light" is light that is ambient and the "illuminated
light" is the ambient light plus the NIR light as claimed.
8
Appeal2018-001313
Application 14/791,946
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 13 and 20,
and dependent claim 17, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments
(App. Br. 29-30).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-8, 11, 12, 18, 19, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 10, 13-17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 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
9