Conduent Business Services, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 23, 2020

14515127 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
14/515,127 10/15/2014 Orhan Bulan 20131817US01/0290.0526 5633
144569 7590 06/23/2020
MH2 TECHNOLOGY LAW GROUP, LLP (w/CONDUENT)
TIMOTHY M. HSIEH
1951 KIDWELL DRIVE
SUITE 310
TYSONS CORNER, VA 22182
EXAMINER
NASRI, MARYAM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2020 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):
conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com
docketing@mh2law.com
doreen@mh2law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ORHAN BULAN, EDGAR A. BERNAL, YAO RONG WANG,
and ROBERT P. LOCE
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, 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, 5, 9–14, 16, 20–22, 25, and 26.
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 Conduent
Business Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring a parking region based on video data of a
view of the parking region received from a video camera;
determining a location of a parking zone within the
parking region, wherein the parking zone is associated with at
least one of an optimal viewing angle and an optimal zoom
ratio;
detecting a vehicle that is in motion in the video data;
soft tracking the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion;
detecting that the vehicle has become stationary;
determining, using a processor, a parking event
associated with the vehicle in the parking region based on
detecting that the vehicle has become stationary after being in
motion, wherein the parking event is detected using the location
of the parking zone;
physically tracking the vehicle by adjusting a view of the
video camera based on determining the parking event, wherein
the adjusting the view of the video camera comprises adjusting
the view to achieve the at least one of the optimal viewing angle
and the optimal zoom ratio;
capturing an image of a license plate of the vehicle;
determining license plate text of the license plate of the
vehicle based on the image of the license plate;
receiving an automatic parking payment associated with
the license plate text;
determining a confidence score of the license plate text;
determining that the confidence score meets a
predetermined threshold;
in response to determining that the confidence score
meets the predetermined threshold, resuming monitoring of the
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
3
parking region by physically adjusting the view of the video
camera;
in response to detecting the vehicle change from
stationary to moving after resuming monitoring of the parking
region, soft tracking the vehicle; and
in response to detecting the vehicle leaving the parking
zone, physically tracking the vehicle by adjusting a view of the
video camera.
Appeal Br. 14–15(Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Senior US 2006/0197839 A1 Sept. 7, 2006
Nerayoff US 2014/0036076 A1 Feb. 6, 2014
Wang US 2015/0139506 A1 May 21, 2015

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5, 9–14, 16, 20–22, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Senior, Nerayoff, and Wang. Ans. 3–12.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “determining a location of a parking zone
within the parking region . . . wherein the parking event is detected using the
location of the parking zone.” The Examiner finds Senior teaches or
suggests the aforementioned limitation, as Senior discloses an automated
method to direct steerable cameras, when a fixed camera detects or identifies
an event of interest, and the identified location of the event determines a
direction in which one or more steerable cameras are directed. See Ans. 4–
5, 13 (citing Senior ¶ 12). The Examiner further finds Nerayoff also teaches
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
4
or suggests detecting a parking event using a location of a parking zone, as
Nerayoff discloses a server system including destination cameras, where the
destination cameras provide actual parking start and end times by allowing
the server system to determine when a vehicle pulls into a destination
location and when the vehicle leaves. See Ans. 7, 13 (citing Nerayoff
¶ 148).
Appellant argues Senior teaches that locations of interest are detected
using events such as the presence of motion, which is opposite of what the
claims require (i.e., that events are detected using the location of the parking
zone). See Appeal Br. 9. This argument is not persuasive. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Senior does teach identifying a location of an event,
and then directing a steerable camera in a direction based on the identified
location. See Senior ¶ 12. Appellant further argues Nerayoff merely
discloses detecting a location using events, similar to Senior. See Appeal
Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive either. Similar to Senior, Nerayoff
discloses identifying a destination location, and using the identified
destination location to determine a parking event (i.e., when a vehicle enters
the identified destination location and when the vehicle leaves the identified
destination location). See Nerayoff ¶ 148. Appellant further argues that
Nerayoff’s disclosure of destination camera providing actual parking start
and end times does not meet the claim limitation “[detecting] a parking
event,” recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 3. This argument is also not
persuasive as Appellant does not explain why Nerayoff’s detected parking
start and end times does not teach or suggest the claimed “[detected] parking
event.”
Claim 1 further recites, inter alia, “physically tracking the vehicle by
adjusting a view of the video camera based on determining the parking
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
5
event, wherein the adjusting the view of the video camera comprises
adjusting the view to achieve the at least one of the optimal viewing angle
and the optimal ratio.” The Examiner finds Senior teaches or suggests the
aforementioned limitation, as Senior discloses that the method of adjusting a
steerable camera involves adjusting an angle and a zoom ratio at which the
steerable camera views an event of interest so that the view of the steerable
camera is optimized. See Ans. 5, 14 (citing Senior ¶¶ 10, 13, 29, 37, 50).
Appellant argues Senior merely discusses optimizing a length of time
cameras are directed to a given event, and optimizing a number of events to
which the cameras are steered, and fails to disclose optimizing a viewing
angle and a zoom ratio. See Appeal Br. 10–11; see also Reply Br. 3–4. This
argument is not persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, Senior
explicitly discloses optimizing a view of a steerable camera, which involves
optimizing an angle and a zoom ratio of the steerable camera. See Senior
¶¶ 10, 29.
Claim 1 also recites, inter alia, “receiving an automatic parking
payment associated with the license plate text.” The Examiner further finds
Nerayoff teaches or suggests detecting a parking event using a location of a
parking zone, as Nerayoff discloses an online payment system that allows an
end user to submit a payment for the use of a destination location (e.g., street
parking space), where the online payment system: determines when a
vehicle pulls into, and out of, a destination location; gathers license plate
information from the vehicle; and facilitates an automatic parking payment
associated with the license plate information. Ans. 7, 14–15 (citing
Nerayoff ¶¶ 21, 25, 223).
Appellant argues Nerayoff fails to disclose an automatic parking
payment associated with a license plate, and, at most, Nerayoff discloses
Appeal 2019-001923
Application 14/515,127
6
using cameras to capture license plate information for enforcement rather
than for obtaining payment associated with the license plate. See Appeal
Br. 11–12; see also Reply Br. 4. This argument is also not persuasive.
Nerayoff explicitly discloses that the payment system receives a text
message or an e-mail from a user including a photo of a license plate, and a
credit card associated with an account for the user is charged a usage fee.
See Nerayoff ¶ 223. Thus, contrary to Appellant’s argument, Nerayoff
teaches an automatic parking payment associated with a license plate.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1. The Examiner rejects independent claim 12 on the same basis as
claim 1, and therefore we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9–11, 13, 15, 16,
20–22, 25, and 26, as they are not separately argued by Appellant.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 9–
14, 16, 20–
22, 25, 26
103 Senior, Nerayoff,
Wang
1–3, 5, 9–
14, 16, 20–
22, 25, 26

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED