International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2020

14936730 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2020)

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.
14/936,730 11/10/2015 Alessandra Asaro DE920150114US1 9040
11445 7590 03/02/2020
IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center
1701 North Street
Building 256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
CONNOLLY, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2020 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALESSANDRA ASARO,
MARCO GIANFICO, ROBERTO RAGUSA,
and MARCO VETTORI
____________

Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, 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, 6–10, 13–17, and 20, which are all
of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention “relates generally to the field of movement
detection, and more particularly to detecting a moving device on a floor.”
Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
retrieving, by one or more processors, a plurality of
pressure readings from a matrix of pressure sensors;
identifying, by the one or more processors, a movement
within the matrix of pressure sensors based, at least in part, on
the plurality of pressure readings;
determining, by the one or more processors, that the
movement is characteristic of a movement assisting device
based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more neighboring
pressure sensors being activated and a second set of one or more
neighboring pressure sensors are deactivated, wherein the first
set of one or more neighboring pressure sensors are adjacent to
the second set of one or more neighboring pressure sensors; and
in response to the determination that the movement is
characteristic of a movement assisting device, enabling, by the
one or more processors, a voice recognition system for receiving
speech commands to operate a device.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

3
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 6–8, 10, 13–15, 17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rao2 in view of Brendley.3
Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Rao in view of Brendley and Snyder.4 Final
Act. 3–4.
OPINION
The Examiner relies on Brendley for the following limitation of
independent claim 1:
determining, by the one or more processors, that the
movement is characteristic of a movement assisting device
based, at least in part, on a first set of one or more neighboring
pressure sensors being activated and a second set of one or more
neighboring pressure sensors are deactivated, wherein the first
set of one or more neighboring pressure sensors are adjacent to
the second set of one or more neighboring pressure sensors
Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner finds that “Brendley teaches a mat
comprising a matrix of sensors which is able to classify and identify objects
such as wheelchairs by observing both a footprint and floor pressure patterns
which is implied to include movement patterns.” Id. at 2 (citing Brendley

2 Venkat Rao, Elevator with Voice Recognition and Wheelchair Detection,
Assistive Technology Blog (Mar. 14, 2011),
http://assistivetechnologyblog.com/2011/03/elevator-with-voice-recognition-
and.html (accessed Aug. 14, 2017) (“Rao”).
3 US 2006/0171570 A1 (Aug. 3, 2006) (“Brendley”).
4 US 2007/0229470 A1 (Oct. 4, 2007) (“Snyder”).
Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

4
¶¶ 18, 89). The Examiner further finds that, “as illustrated [by Brendley]
with respect to a footfall pattern, the recognized motion is determined based
on the activation and deactivation [of] neighboring sensors.” Id. at 3 (citing
Brendley Fig. 18, ¶ 133).
Appellant argues that neither of the applied references teach this
limitation, and in particular that “Brendley does not teach or suggest
determining movement of a movement assisting device based on adjacent
sets of sensors being activated and deactivated.” Id. at 13 (some emphases
omitted); see also id. at 10–11. Rather, according to Appellant, “Brendley
teaches that objects are identified based on the size of an area of contact for
an object.” Id. at 13 (emphasis omitted) (citing Brendley Fig. 18, ¶¶ 18, 133,
153).
We agree with the Examiner that Figure 18 of Brendley, which
diagrams “time sensor analysis to form a footfall image” or “footprint,”
indicates that, “[o]ver multiple frames, the sensor array reports which
sensors were activated and deactivated.” Brendley Fig. 18, ¶ 68; Ans. 4.
For example, Frame 4 shows three activated sensors and deactivation of two
sensors that were previously activated in Frame 3. See Brendley Fig. 18.
We further agree with the Examiner that the determination of a footprint of a
wheelchair would be based on the activation and deactivation of adjacent
pressure sensors. See Ans. 4. As the Examiner points out, the footprint “is
the culmination of multiple frames taken over a time period in response to
object movement, wherein adjacent sensors activate and deactivate over said
time period as they interact with the object.” Id.
Appellant further argues that, because Figure 18 of Brendley shows a
space or blank spot in the footfall image due to the foot arch, Brendley
Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

5
teaches “non-adjacency” and “fails to teach or suggest the activation of
adjacent sensors.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis added). We are not persuaded
by this argument. As discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that the
determination of a footprint of a wheelchair would be based on the
activation and deactivation of adjacent pressure sensors. See Ans. 4. That
is, we agree with the Examiner that when a wheelchair is used its
“interaction with the sensor mat would include adjacent sensors activating
and deactivating as each wheel rolls along the mat.” Id.; see also id. at 5–6
(Examiner illustrating possible frames and footprint of a wheel according to
the footprint technique shown in Brendley Fig. 18).
Finally, Appellant argues that detecting a wheeled object using the
footprint technique shown in Figure 18 of Brendley “would result in a
bizarre situation where wheels would need to have ‘blank spots for the foot
arch.’” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Brendley ¶ 133). Otherwise, according to
Appellant, “[c]ompletely removing . . . the identification of gaps in a heel to
toe movement” would render Brendley inoperable for its intended purpose.
Id.; see Reply Br. 4–5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner does
not rely on Brendley for the blank spots due to the arch of a foot shown in
Figure 18. Rather, the Examiner relies on Brendley’s teaching of identifying
wheelchairs using footprint and floor pressure patterns, and cites Figure 18
of Brendley to support the finding that Brendley identifies objects (including
pedestrians and wheelchairs) based on footprint and floor pressure patterns
as determined by the activation and deactivation of neighboring sensors.
Final Act. 2–3; see Brendley ¶ 18. We agree with the Examiner that
Brendley identifies a wheelchair “based on its footprint and its floor pressure
Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

6
pattern (i.e. its rolling pattern which is the wheelchair equivalent of the
[Figure 18] example footfall pattern or gait used to identify pedestrians).”
Final Act. 3.
Furthermore, Appellant has not proffered any portion of Brendley, or
anything else in the record, that discourages, criticizes, or otherwise
discredits using Brendley’s footprint technique to detect a wheeled object.
In fact, Brendley expressly teaches that the mat “can count, classify and
identify objects, such as . . . wheelchairs” based on “footprint and floor/wall
pressure patterns,” and that wheels may be classified by their “signature[]”
footprint of “long thin tracks.” Brendley ¶¶ 18, 150, 153. As the Examiner
explains, detecting a wheeled object using Brendley’s footprint technique
would result in adjacent sensors activating and deactivating to form a
footprint of “long thin tracks.” See Ans. 4–6, 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 and independent claims 8 and 15 having similar limitations, as well
as dependent claims 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 20 not separately argued by
Appellant, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rao and
Brendley. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 not separately argued by Appellant under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rao in view of Brendley and
Snyder.

Appeal 2019-001521
Application 14/936,730

7
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 6–10, 13–17, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 6–8,
10, 13–15,
17, 20
103 Rao, Brendley 1, 3, 6–8, 10,
13–15, 17, 20

2, 9, 16 103 Rao, Brendley,
Snyder
2, 9, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 6–10, 13–17,
20

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