Ex Parte Tyagi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 30, 2019

15079954 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/079,954 03/24/2016
117548 7590 05/02/2019
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Omron
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ambrish Tyagi
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.
1052-0014 I Dl 724US01 6296
EXAMINER
JEBARI, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2019 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMBRISH TY AGI, JOHN DRINKARD, YOSHIHARU TANI
and KOICHI KINOSHITA
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1--4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Omron Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants describes the invention as follows:
According to one aspect of the teachings presented herein, a
projective volume monitoring apparatus is configured to protect
against the intrusion of crawling and walking persons into a
monitoring zone. The apparatus acquires stereo images of a first
monitoring zone that begins at a defined height above a floor and
of a second monitoring zone that lies below the first monitoring
zone and extends downward to a floor or other surface on which
persons may walk or crawl, and processes the stereo images to
obtain range pixels. The apparatus detects object intrusions
within the first monitoring zone by processing the corresponding
range pixels using first object detection parameters that are tuned
for the detection of walking or running persons, and detects
object intrusions within the second monitoring zone by
processing the corresponding range pixels using second object
detection parameters that are tuned for the detection of crawling
or prone persons.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of protecting against the intrusion of crawling
and walking persons into a monitoring zone comprising:
acquiring stereo images of a first monitoring zone that
begins at a defined height above a floor and of a second
monitoring zone that lies below the first monitoring zone and
extends downward to a floor or other surface on which persons
may walk or crawl;
processing the stereo images to obtain range pixels;
detecting object intrusions within the first monitoring zone
by processing those range pixels corresponding to the first
monitoring zone using first object detection parameters that are
tuned for the detection of walking or running persons; and
2
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
detecting object intrusions within the second monitoring
zone by processing those range pixels corresponding to the
second monitoring zone using second object detection
parameters that are tuned for the detection of crawling or prone
persons.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Nichani et al. (US 2005/0093697 Al, published May 5,
2005), Hammes et al. (US 2012/0074296 Al, published Mar. 29, 2012) and
Cuddihy et al. (US 2012/0025989 Al, published Feb. 2, 2012). Final Act.
5-7.
2. Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Nichani, Hammes, Cuddihy and Nichani et al. (US 6,829,371 Bl, issued
Dec. 7, 2004) ("Nichani2"). Final Act. 7-8.
DISCUSSION
Claims 1 and 3
Claim 1 requires "a first monitoring zone that begins at a defined
height above a floor" and "a second monitoring zone that lies below the first
monitoring zone and extends downward to a floor or other surface on which
persons may walk or crawl." The Examiner finds Nichani teaches the
claimed "first monitoring zone" in its disclosed monitoring area. Ans. 9
( citing Nichani ,r 50, Figs. 2A, 3). Separately, the Examiner finds Hammes
also teaches the claimed "first monitoring zone" by monitoring an area that
begins at a height above the floor. Id. ( citing Hammes, Figs. 3--4 (zones 40,
40a-c)). The Examiner also finds Hammes teaches the claimed "second
monitoring zone" by disclosing a monitoring zone that extends downward to
3
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
the floor. Ans. 9 (citing Hammes, Figs.3--4 (zone 42)). Separately, the
Examiner finds Cuddihy also teaches a monitoring zone that extends
downward to the floor. Final Act. 6 ( citing Cuddihy, Fig. 1 ); Ans. 9 ( citing
Cuddihy, Fig. 1 ). Finally, the Examiner finds Hammes teaches monitoring
two or more zones where the zones are one on top of the other. Id. at 8-9
(citing Hammes ,r,r 51, 55, Figs. 3--4).
Appellants argue "[t]he record evidence demonstrates that the
Examiner errs in finding that Hammes discloses first and second monitoring
zones within the meaning of claim 1." App. Br. 4. Appellants make two
arguments in this regard. First, Appellants argue the monitored zones
disclosed in Hammes "are all well above the height Hammes uses for
detecting persons" whereas the "first monitoring zone" of claim 1
"necessarily exists at a height suitable for detecting walking or running
persons and the second monitoring zone exists below it." Id. at 6.
Second, Appellants argue "Hammes does not appear to operate the
working areas 40a, 40b, and 40c in pairs with each other, or with any of
them paired with area 42." Id. Instead, according to Appellants "Hammes
describes these areas as being operated in an individual sense" or in a "one-
at-a-time" manner. Id.; see also Reply Br. 4 ("Hammes does not continue
using the provisional working areas 40a, 40b, and 40c because (a) they do
not logically exist once the illumination reaches down to the floor and (b)
Hammes describes monitoring the working area 42 and shutting the unit
down if persons are detected above 2.4 meters.")
Closely related to the above, second argument, Appellants make a
third argument that there is no rational underpinning for modifying and
combining the references. App. Br. 8. Here, Appellants argue Nichani
4
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
"focuses on detecting head-and-shoulder profiles of people," (App. Br. 9),
"Hammes discloses one 'normal' zone-the actual working area 42-used
for the detection of any person" (App. Br. 9), and "Cuddihy focuses on
detecting persons that have fallen" and thus also "discloses one monitoring
zone." App. Br. 10. Thus, according to Appellants, each reference
(Nichani, Hammes, and Cuddihy) "appears to monitor one area or zone." Id.
Appellants argue the Examiner does not address these differences between
the references and the claims or why one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine and modify the references. Id. Appellants argue the
Examiner's proposed rationale of relying on "design choice" is insufficient.
Id. at 8, 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. As to Appellants'
first argument that Hammes discloses zones that are well above the height
for detecting a person, we note that at least zone 42 of Hammes discloses a
zone that is not above the height for detecting a person. Specifically, zone
42 of Hammes starts at the floor and extends about 2.5m above the floor.
Hammes ,r 71. Further, we agree with the Examiner that, separate and apart
from Hammes, Nichani discloses a zone that starts at a height above the
floor and is still at a height that can detect walking persons. Ans. 9. Nichani
discloses a target volume for tracking head and shoulder positions of moving
people that may exclude the floor. Nichani ,r 50, Fig. 2A. Figures 2A and 3
ofNichani depict the target volumes and show that they are both above the
floor and at a height that can detect a walking person. See Nichani Figs. 2A
and 3. Appellants' argument does not address Nichani' s teaching in this
regard and is thus unpersuasive.
5
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
We tum next to Appellants' second and third arguments. In the
second argument, Appellants contend that Hammes operates its zones
individually, one at a time. App. Br. 6. In other words, even though
Hammes discloses multiple monitoring zones, only one zone is monitored at
a time. In the third argument, Appellants extend this second argument to the
other two references as well and argue Nichani and Cuddihy also disclose
only monitoring one zone. App. Br. 10. Thus, according to Appellants,
because all three references teach monitoring only one zone, the Examiner's
rejection lacks a sufficiently rational reason to modify and combine the
references to monitor both first and second zones as claimed. Id.
We find these arguments to be unpersuasive. First, we note that
Appellants' argument assumes the claimed first and second monitoring
zones are monitored simultaneously. Such an interpretation is
incommensurate with the broadest reasonable scope of the claim, which does
not require the two monitoring zones be monitored simultaneously. Second,
we agree with the Examiner that Hammes teaches that "one or more virtual
protection zones and warning zones can be configured" so that "a high
flexibility is available." Hammes ,r 55. Thus, even if in the specific
embodiment of Hammes' Figures 3 and 4 only one zone is monitored at a
time, Hammes discloses in paragraph 55 that more than one zone may be
monitored.
The totality of the Examiner's findings therefore establish the
following: (1) Nichani and Hammes each disclose monitoring a zone that
starts at a height above the floor; (2) Cuddihy and Hammes each disclose
monitoring a zone that extends to the floor and (3) Hammes teaches
monitoring zones one on top of the other and also teaches that more than one
6
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
zone can be configured to be monitored for the sake of flexibility. The
Examiner finds that design choice would guide one of skill in the art to
modify and combine the aforementioned monitored zones for the intended
purpose of the invention, such as monitoring a walking person, as disclosed
by Nichani, monitoring a prone person, as disclosed by Cuddihy, and using
two or more zones, as disclosed by Hammes. Ans. 10. We find that the
Examiner has articulated a reason with rational underpinning to combine and
modify the references. And, as is evident, the Examiner relied on the
references themselves in articulating this reason, rather than in hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention. See Ans. 10.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further requires that object
detection parameters for the first monitoring zone include a first minimum
object size parameter, and a first maximum object speed parameter for
detectable objects. Claim 2 also requires that object detection parameters for
the second monitoring zone include a second minimum object size larger
than the first minimum object size and a second maximum object speed
lower than the first maximum object speed.
With respect to Nichani, Appellants argue "[g]enerating head
detection templates using a relative sizing dependent on the stereoscopic
disparity cannot be likened to the minimum object size detection thresholds
of claim 2." With respect to Nichani2, Appellants argue "[a]t most, these
details in Nichani2 suggest that object speeds impose constraints on any
application involving area monitoring, but they fall short of suggesting the
particularly claimed configuration of stacked monitoring zones, and the use
7
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
of differently tuned parameters in the upper and lower zones described in the
claims." App. Br. 14.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Nichani2 teaches that
"only intrusion by objects having a certain size or shape may trigger an
alarm condition." Nichani2 9:40-45. Nichani2 also teaches a relationship
between a maximum system scan time, an expected minimum intruder size
and an expected maximum intruder approach velocity." Nichani2 9:46-49.
We agree with the Examiner that Nichani2 therefore teaches a "relationship
between a monitoring zone and changing size and maximum speed of a
detectable object." Ans. 11. Appellants' argument that Nichani2 "falls short
of suggesting the ... use of differently tuned parameters in the upper and
lower zones" (App. Br. 14) is unpersuasive. "[T]he [obviousness] analysis
need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of
the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). We find one of ordinary
skill in the art, given the teachings ofNichani2 showing that zones may be
configured to disregard certain objects based on size and velocity, would
have incorporated those teachings into the other references to use different
parameters for the two monitored zones.
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 2 and recites "wherein the first minimum
object size threshold is at or about 200 mm in cross section, the second
minimum object size threshold is more than 200 mm in cross section, the
first maximum object speed is about 1.6 mis, and the second maximum
object speed is about 0.8 mis."
8
Appeal2018-000050
Application 15/079,954
Appellants make many of the same arguments made for claims 1 and
2 and also argue that the he references do not show "the specified qualifying
thresholds of claim 4." App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 6-7.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments for largely the same
reasons as explained with regard to claim 2 above. We agree with the
Examiner that "it is a matter of selection within the level of one of ordinary
skill in the art for an inventor to choose [the specific threshold recited in
claim 4 for] a minimum object size and speed and maximum object size and
speed for each monitoring zone." Ans. 12. Without any clear explanation as
to why the specifically recited size and speed thresholds are uniquely special
or would be beyond the knowledge and skill of the ordinary artisan to
implement, we find these specific thresholds to be obvious given Nichani2' s
more general teachings that size and speed may be considered in detecting
objects found in monitoring zones.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9