Hotte, Denis et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2019

14485051 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2019)

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.
14/485,051 09/12/2014 Denis Hotte 119219.00047 2825
70096 7590 12/31/2019
FASKEN MARTINEAU DUMOULIN, LLP
STOCK EXCHANGE TOWER, SUITE 3700
P.O. BOX 242, 800 PLACE VICTORIA
MONTREAL, QUEBEC H4Z 1E9
CANADA
EXAMINER
KYEREME-TUAH, AKOSUA P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2019 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):
mtlpatents@fasken.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DENIS HOTTE, NICHOLAS DROLET, ALAIN MARTEL,
RICHARD GAGNON, and CLAUDE LEJEUNE
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
Technology Center 3600

BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, 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 rejecting claims 1, 6, 11, and 152. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM .

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CENTRE DE
RECHERCHE INDUSTRIELLE DU QUEBEC. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, 12–14, and 16–18 were cancelled in an
amendment filed after the Final Rejection.
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to augmented reality methods and apparatus
for assisting an operator to perform tasks on moving objects. See Spec. ¶ 1;
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An augmented reality method for assisting an operator to
perform a task within a working zone on an object moving
along a path intersecting the working zone and according to at
least one characteristic of said object, said method being for use
with a sensor unit configured to generate data indicative of said
object characteristic at a detecting position upstream said
working zone, said method comprising the steps of:
i) generating task instruction data according to said
characteristic indicative data;
ii) estimating successive positions of said object as it moves
toward and through the working zone to generate object
position tracking data;
iii) processing said task instruction data and said object position
tracking data to generate object tracking task instruction data;
and
iv) projecting light according to said object tracking task
instruction data directly onto said object as it moves through the
working zone, said light providing a visual instruction for the
operator about the task to perform on the object.
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bonnet US 5,868,238 Feb. 9, 1999
Ramsager US 2004/0195320 A1 Oct. 7, 2004
Chen et al. US 2013/0249943 A1 Sept. 26, 2013
REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen et al. (“Chen”) and Ramsager. Final Act. 8–17.
Claims 11 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chen, Ramsager, and Bonnet. Final Act. 17, 21–26, 28–
32.
OPINION
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the combined
teachings of Chen and Ramsager would have rendered obvious “projecting
light according to said object tracking task instruction data directly onto said
object as it moves through the working zone, said light providing a visual
instruction for the operator about the task to perform on the object,” as
recited in claim 1. Appellant argues independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 15
together as a group. See Appeal Br. 13–28. As a result, we choose claim 1
as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches “projecting light according to
said object tracking task instruction data directly onto said object as it moves
through the working zone,” and “a visual instruction for the operator about
the task to perform on the object,” as recited in claim 1, based on Chen’s
disclosures of: (1) illumination reflected from, diffracted from, dispersed
from, or transmitted through sortable items on the sorting surface providing
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
4
input to a sensor system and a computing system to calculate composition
information of the items; (2) an augmented reality interface (i.e., glasses) to
present to a sorter the composition of an item, and the bin that may receive
the item based on the item composition; (3) the augmented reality interface
(i.e., glasses) provides visual sensations to the sorter including overlaying a
colored outline on an item to indicate the bin to receive the item. See Final
Act. 9–10 (citing Chen ¶¶ 13, 25, 29, 37, 47); Ans. 4–5 (citing Chen ¶¶ 13,
25, 29, 37, 47). The Examiner acknowledges that “Chen does not explicitly
teach ‘projecting light according to said object tracking task instruction data
directly onto said object as it moves through the working zone, said light
providing a visual instruction for the operator about the task to perform on
the object’ as stated in the claim (underlined emphasis on aspect not
taught).” Final Act. 10; Ans. 5.
The Examiner finds that Ramsager’s teachings remedy the
deficiencies of Chen’s teachings based on disclosures of: (1) one or more
projectors that project displays including handling instructions onto items
correlated to data included on the item’s label or indicia; and (2) a projector
serving as a simple spotlight to illuminate selected parcels, while leaving
non-selected parcels dark. See Final Act. 10–11 (citing Ramsager ¶¶ 53, 54,
85); Ans. 5–6 (citing Ramsager ¶¶ 53, 54, 85). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to modify the teachings of Chen with the teachings of
Ramsager in order to apply handling instructions accurately. See Final Act.
11 (citing Ramsager ¶ 11); Ans. 6 (citing Ramsager ¶ 11). The Examiner
explains that the claimed invention is a combination of old elements in a
similar field of endeavor, in which each element would have performed the
same function as it did separately, and the combination would have yielded
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
5
predictable results. See Final Act. 11 (citing MPEP § 2143); Ans. 6 (citing
MPEP § 2143).
Appellant argues that one with ordinary skill in the art with
knowledge of Chen would not have turned to parcel sorting technologies
with the motivation to accurately apply handling instructions on recyclable
items. See Appeal Br. 25.
As an initial matter, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of
Examiner error because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim
language. Claim 1 does not require applying handling instructions to
recyclable items. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co.,
150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claim 1 only requires “projecting
light according to said object tracking task instruction directly onto said
object as it moves through the working zone, said light providing a visual
instruction for the operator about the task to perform on the object.” And to
the extent Appellant argues that Ramsager’s teachings related to parcel
sorting are not analogous art, we are not persuaded. A reference is
analogous art if it is either in the field of the Appellant’s endeavor or is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was
concerned. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Bigio, 381
F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Notwithstanding Appellant’s bare
arguments regarding the field of endeavor (i.e. parcel sorting vs. applying
instructions on recyclable items), Appellant does not address whether
Ramsager’s teachings are reasonably pertinent to assisting an operator to
perform tasks on moving objects (see Spec. Abstract, Title, ¶¶ 1, 6.) (i.e., the
problem with which the inventor was involved).
Appellant also argues that a skilled person would not have added the
projector disclosed in Ramsager to the system disclosed in Chen with the
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
6
motivation to accurately apply instructions to such recyclable items because
it would have been redundant. See Appeal Br. 25 (citing Kinetic Concepts,
Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 688 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012) for holding
that a person would have no reason to combine features of two devices that
served the same function and independently operated effectively). Appellant
contends that Chen’s augmented reality glasses are specifically designed to
accurately apply instructions to recyclable items by projecting instructions
onto its glasses rather than on the items itself, and is better adapted than the
Ramsager’s projector to accurately apply handling instructions on recyclable
items that come in a wide variety of compositions, shapes, and sizes. See id.
at 25–26 (citing Chen Fig. 3).
Again, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error
because they are not commensurate in scope with the claim language. Claim
1 does not require applying handling instructions to recyclable items, or
recyclable items that come in a wide variety of compositions, shapes, and
sizes. Claim 1 merely requires “projecting light according to said object
tracking task instruction directly onto said object as it moves through the
working zone, said light providing a visual instruction for the operator about
the task to perform on the object.” We also are not persuaded by
Appellant’s contention that there would have been no reason to combine the
teachings of Chen and Ramsager on the basis of redundancy. Contrary to
Appellant’s suggestion that the use of Chen’s augmented reality interface
system alone is designed for applying instructions to objects, Chen teaches
that the augmented reality interface (i.e., glasses) provides visual augmented
information that may be used in addition to information available in the
normal visual field. See Chen ¶ 37. Chen further explains that the
augmented reality interface user’s field of view may incorporate a view of
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
7
both the items and the sorting surface, as well as additional visual
information overlaid on the observed scene. See id. In other words, Chen
suggests that visual information in the normal visual field can be used
together with the visual information provided through the augmented reality
interface. See id. In view of Chen’s suggestion, we agree with the Examiner
that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to
modify the teachings of Chen to include Ramsager’s teachings of using a
projector to project light directly on the object (e.g., in the normal visual
field providing a simple spotlight to illuminate selected items, while leaving
non-selected parcels dark) to accurately provide handling instructions. See
Final Act 11; Ans. 6. We further agree with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Chen and Ramsager would have been a combination of known
elements, with each element would perform the same function it did
separately, and would yield a predictable result (e.g., providing visual
information with a spotlight to illuminate the selected object in the normal
visual field and providing visual information by an augmented reality
interface by overlaying a colored outline on the object). See Final Act 11;
Ans. 6.
We find misplaced and unpersuasive Appellant’s remaining
arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been
motivated to substitute Ramsager’s projector for Chen’s augmented reality
glasses. See Appeal Br. 26–27. Appellant’s arguments are misplaced and
unpersuasive because the Examiner does not propose substituting
Ramsager’s projector for Chen’s augmented reality interface (i.e., glasses).
See Final Act. 11; Ans. 6.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 11, and 15.
Appeal 2019-002999
Application 14/485,051
8
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 6, 11, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 6 103(a) Chen, Ramsager 1, 6
11, 15 103(a) Chen, Ramsager, Bonnet 11, 15
Overall
Outcome 1, 6, 11, 15
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED