Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2021

2019003634 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2021)

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.
15/216,964 07/22/2016 Kenneth Louis Herman 030120-207410US 1070
16621 7590 03/18/2021
Butzel Long / 030120
1909 K St.
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20006
EXAMINER
TARKO, ASMAMAW G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2482
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2021 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):
docket@butzel.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENNETH LOUIS HERMAN,
AVEEK RAVISHEKHAR PUROHIT, BRYAN JAMES,
MARK RAJAN MALHOTRA, and YASH MODI
Appeal 2019-003634
Application 15/216,964
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–11, and 13–22, which are all of the
pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC. Appeal
Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003634
Application 15/216,964

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to determining sensor installation
characteristics from a camera image. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an image of at least a portion of a room, the
image of the room comprising an image of a sensor mounted in
the room;
receiving at least one optical parameter related to the
image of the room;
determining a distance between the sensor and a camera
that captured the image of the room, wherein the determination
of the distance is based at least in part on the image of the room,
on the optical parameters, and on known physical dimensions of
the sensor;
determining a sensitivity requirement of the sensor, based
on the distance;
sending the determined sensitivity requirement to control
logic of the sensor; and
configuring the sensor to operate at the determined
sensitivity requirement to determine an alarm event.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Sloo US 9,019,111 B1 Apr. 28, 2015
Sharpe US 2014/0309782 A1 Oct. 16, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 3–11, 13–20, 22 102 Sloo
21 103 Sloo, Sharpe

Appeal 2019-003634
Application 15/216,964

3
OPINION
Appellant argues persuasively that Sloo does not describe determining
a sensitivity requirement of a sensor based on a distance between a sensor in
a room and a camera that captured the image of the room. The Examiner
finds as follows:
Sloo teaches . . . receiving an image of at least a portion of a
room, the image of the room comprising an image of a sensor
mounted in the room (column 49 lines 5-9 and lines 13-24;
Figures 31 block 3134); . . . determining a distance between the
sensor and a camera that captured the image of the room, wherein
the determination of the distance is based at least in part on the
image of the room, on the optical parameters, and on known
physical dimensions of the sensor (column 16 lines 45-48 and
column 49 lines 5-12; Figs. 8 (814) and 31 (3134)); determining
a sensitivity requirement of the sensor, based on the distance
(column 40 lines 31-35 and column 42 lines 33-38; Fig. 28)[.]
Final Act. 4. The Examiner does not elaborate further. See generally id.
To whatever extent Sloo describes determining a distance from a
received image of a room having a detector (Sloo 49:5–9, 20–22 (“Another
example of such a feature includes a video camera that determines a distance
of the hazard detector 3102 from at least one surface in proximity to the
hazard detector” “along with an indication of whether an instant placement
of the hazard detector 3102 might prevent the hazard detector 3102 from
operating within specification . . .”)), we are persuaded that the determined
distance in Sloo is not “a distance between the sensor and a camera that
captured the image of the room,” as required by claim 1. The Examiner does
not adequately explain how the claim reads on the cited description in Sloo.
See generally Final Act; Ans.
Appeal 2019-003634
Application 15/216,964

4
We are persuaded, however, Sloo describes the determined distance
being used to determine a sensitivity requirement, which is sent to the
control logic of the sensor to configure the sensor to operate at the
determined sensitivity requirement. Sloo 25:22–24 (“FIG. 26 illustrates
another example of the application 1012 providing recommended settings
for the hazard detector 500 based upon the identified location of the hazard
detector 500.”)
Be that as it may, Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the independent claims is erroneous.
We therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 1, and of independent claim 11,
argued therewith. We also reverse the rejections of the independent claims
for the same reasons.

Appeal 2019-003634
Application 15/216,964

5
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11, 13–
20, 22
102 Sloo 1, 3–11, 13–
20, 22
21 103 Sloo, Sharpe 21
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–11, 13–
22

REVERSED