MOBILEYE VISION TECHNOLOGIES LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 19, 2020

14180548 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 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.
14/180,548 02/14/2014 Oded Berberian 12312.0056-00000 4981
22852 7590 02/19/2020
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, MOHAMMAD J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2487
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2020 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ODED BERBERIAN and GIDEON STEIN1
________________

Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1–12, which constitute all claims pending in this
application. Appeal Br. 8–13.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd.
as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed January 22, 2018 (“Appeal
Br.”) 3.
2 Oral argument was held on February 12, 2020. The transcript will be
added to the record in due course.
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
Detection of three[-]dimensional obstacles using a system
mountable in a host vehicle including a camera connectible to a
processor. Multiple image frames are captured in the field of
view of the camera. In the image frames, an imaged feature is
detected of an object in the environment of the vehicle. The
image frames are portioned locally around the imaged feature to
produce imaged portions of the image frames including the
imaged feature. The image frames are processed to compute a
depth map locally around the detected imaged feature in the
image portions. Responsive to the depth map, it is determined if
the object is an obstacle to the motion of the vehicle.
Abstract.3
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis,
illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims:
1. A method for detection of three[-]dimensional obstacles,
the method performed by a system mountable in a vehicle,
wherein the system includes a processor operatively connectible
to a camera, the method comprising:
capturing a plurality of two-dimensional image frames in
a field of view of the camera;
detecting, in the image frames, a two-dimensional
candidate of a three-dimensional object in an environment of the
vehicle using monocular information;
portioning the image frames around the candidate to
produce image portions including the candidate;

3 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their details: Appellant’s Specification filed Febru-
ary 14, 2014 (“Spec.”); the Non-Final Action mailed July 13, 2017 (“Non-
Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 21, 2018 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed May 21, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

3
computing a depth map around the candidate in the image
portions, wherein the depth map includes depth values related to
a function of distance from the camera to the object; and
determining, based on the depth map, whether the object
represented by the candidate is an obstacle to the motion of the
vehicle.

THE REFERENCES
The Examiner bases the prior-art rejections on the following
references:
Name Reference Date
Fox US 2003/0228034 A1 Dec. 11, 2003
Southall US 2007/0255480 A1 Nov. 1, 2007
Stein US 2008/0036576 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
Jung US 2011/0255741 A1 Oct. 11, 2011

STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jung and Fox. Non-Final Act. 4–5.
Claims 3–5 and 8–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jung, Fox, and Southall. Non-Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable Jung, Fox, and Stein. Non-Final Act. 6.4

4 The Examiner omits claim 12 from the statement of rejections. Non-Final
Act. 4–6. However, the Examiner states that claims 6–10 and 12 are
rejected in a manner similar to claims 1–5 and 11. Non-Final Act. 3.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to that of claim 11. See claims 11 and 12 (both
reciting limitations regarding the detection of the horizon and identification
of the two-dimensional candidate in the image frames below the horizon).
Appeal Br. 17. And claim 11 is stated as being rejected over the
combination of Jung, Fox, and Stein. Non-Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

4
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed
rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in
light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye,
94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner initially finds in the non-final rejection that Jung
discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except for explicitly
disclosing that the depth map includes depth values related to a function of
distance from the camera to the object. Non-Final Act. 4. More specifically,
the Examiner finds that Jung discloses, inter alia, a method performed by a
system that includes a processor operatively connectable to a camera,
wherein the method includes capturing a plurality of two-dimensional image
frames in a field of view of the camera, and detecting in the image frames a
two-dimensional candidate of a three-dimensional object in an environment
of the vehicle using monocular information. Id. (citing Jung, ¶¶ 8, 44,
FIG. 3 steps S1, S2, S4).
The Examiner relies on Fox for teaching a depth map that includes
depth values related to a function of distance from the camera to the object.
Id. at 4–5. The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
modify Jung to incorporate the teachings of Fox to ascertain depth
characteristics as a function of image characteristics. Id. at 5 (citing Fox,
Abstract).

interpret the Non-Final Action as containing a clerical error and as intending
to recite that claim 12 also is rejected with claim 11.
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

5
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Jung does not teach “detecting, in the
image frames, a two-dimensional candidate of a three-dimensional object in
an environment of the vehicle using monocular information,” as claimed.
Appeal Br. 9 (emphasis added). According to Appellant, the relied-upon
passages of Jung disclose “using a [three-dimensional] human shape model
to detect candidate regions of a pedestrian. Id. (citing Jung ¶¶ 9, 49)
(emphasis added).
In the subsequently mailed Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner
attempts to supplement the rationale for the rejection. Ans. 2–5.
Specifically, the Examiner divides the disputed claim language into two
parts: (1) “detecting, in the image frames, a two-dimensional candidate of a
three-dimensional object in an environment of the vehicle,” and (2) “using
monocular information.” Id. at 4. The Examiner newly takes the position
that “[t]he first part of the claim [was] well known in the art[,] as explained
. . . in the background of the invention” of Appellant’s Specification, as well
as by Jung’s teachings. Id. (citing Jung Figure 3, step S1, for teaching that
capturing two-dimensional representations of three-dimensional objects was
well known in the industry); see also id. at 3–4 (newly citing the background
disclosure of Jung and several additional references for further support of
this proposition).
The Examiner also reasons that the second part of the disputed
limitation—using monocular information—also was well known. Id. at 4
(citing Jung ¶ 44, as well as Figure 3, steps S1 and S2, for the proposition
that Jung’s “image capture system can be monocular, binocular[,] or a multi-
camera system”).
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

6
That is, the Examiner’s initial theory of rejection, as set forth in the
non-final rejection, is that Jung’s disclosed invention entails “detecting, in
the image frames, a two-dimensional candidate of a three-dimensional object
in an environment of the vehicle using monocular information,” as recited in
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 4–6. The Examiner shifts from that position,
though, subsequently finding that using monocular information in the
claimed manner is not only taught by Jung’s disclosed invention, but also
was well known in the art at the time of the invention, as evidenced, for
example, by Appellant’s prior-art admissions and by the Background section
of Jung. Ans. 3–5.

ANALYSIS
I.
Jung is directed to “[a] computer implemented method for detecting
the presence of one or more pedestrians in the vicinity of the vehicle” by
receiving imagery of a scene from at least one image-capturing device.
Jung, Abstract. The Background of the Invention section of Jung explains
that various types of detection systems can perform this task, including radar
systems and computer-vision systems. Jung. ¶ 5. Jung further explains that
computer-vision systems, in turn, include monocular vision systems and
stereo vision systems. Id.
In relation to the computer-vision systems, Jung explains that “stereo
vision systems are superior to monocular vision systems [because] stereo
vision systems permit calculation of distances to a target pedestrian by
employing relatively high resolution 3D depth maps.” Id. According to
Jung,
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

7
3D systems and methods known in the art may provide a
low false positive rate at the expense of speed, while 2D methods
and system have been shown to produce low [sic: high?] false
positive rate and high detection rates. Accordingly, what would
be desirable, but has not yet been provided, is a 3D method and
system for detecting pedestrians from moving vehicles in
cluttered environments having low false positives and high
detection rates, while maintaining real-time processing speed.
Id. ¶ 9 (emphasis added).
Jung then explains in the Summary-of-the-Invention section that Jung
achieves a solution to this problem by
providing a computer implemented method for detecting the
presence of one or more pedestrians in the vicinity of the vehicle,
comprising the steps of:
receiving imagery of a scene from one or more image
capturing devices; deriving a depth map and appearance
information (i.e., color and intensity) from the imagery;
detecting a plurality of pedestrian candidate regions of
interest (ROIs) from the depth map by matching each of the
plurality of ROIs with a 3D human shape model; and
classifying at least a portion of the candidate ROIs by employing
the appearance information via a cascade of classifiers tuned for
a plurality of depth bands and trained on a filtered representation
of data within the portion of candidate ROIs to determine
whether at least one pedestrian is proximal to the vehicle.
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added and formatting modified for clarity).
Jung then states again that “[t]he aforementioned image capturing
devices are those that support derivation of three-dimensional (3D)
information, such as a pair of stereo cameras, a LIDAR device, a SONAR
device, a radar device, a photogrammetry device, or any other passive or
active ranging device or devices.” Id. ¶ 11 (emphasis added).
Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

8
In the Detailed-Description-of-the-Invention section, Jung again
explains that “[e]mbodiments of the present invention employ an exemplary
3D method and real-time system for detecting a pedestrian in the vicinity of
the vehicle.” Id. 41 (emphasis added). Jung also states that, “[b]y way of a
non-limiting example, the system 110 receives digitized video from the one
or more image capturing devices 106 (e.g., stereo cameras).” Id. 44
(emphasis added).
In short, Jung renders it reasonably clear, as Appellant argues (Appeal
Br. 10), that Jung detects pedestrian candidate regions comparing 3D depth
maps to 3D human shape models. As such, the Examiner has not
sufficiently established the originally relied-upon basis of rejection—that
Jung’s disclosed invention entails using monocular information for detecting
a two-dimensional candidate, as claim 1 requires.
II.
We view the Examiner’s introduction of the new reasoning in the
Answer, as well as the Examiner’s new reliance upon official notice of what
was well-known in the art, to be an untimely and improper attempt to
supplement the rejection with references that were not relied upon in the
rejection at the time of prosecution. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342
n.3 (CCPA 1970) (“Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection,
whether or not in a ‘minor capacity,’ there would appear to be no excuse for
not positively including [that] reference in the statement of the rejection”).
We, therefore, do not consider the new rationale on appeal.

Appeal 2018-005923
Application 14/180,548

9
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of that claim, of independent
claim 6, which recite similar language, or of claims 2 and 7, which depend
from these claims.
With respect to the remaining rejections of dependent claims 3–5, and
8–12, the Examiner does not rely on either Southall or Stein to cure the
deficiency of the obviousness rejection noted above. Non-Final Act. 5–6.
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6, 7 103(a) Jung, Fox 1, 2, 6, 7
3–5, 8–10 103(a) Jung, Fox, Southall 3–5, 8–10
11, 12 103(a) Jung, Fox, Stein 11, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–12