Ex Parte Aliakseyeu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

13583806 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/583,806 09/10/2012 Dzmitry Viktorovich Aliakseyeu
24737 7590 11/02/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
201 OP0021 l WOUS 2411
EXAMINER
MASINI CK, MICHAEL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2117
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DZMITRY VIKTOROVICH ALIAKSEYEU, JIA DU, and
PETRONELLA HENDRIKA ZWARTKRUIS-PELGRIM
Appeal2018-004193 1
Application 13/583,8062
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1--4 and 7-14. Final Act. 3, 7. Claims 5 and 6 are
cancelled. App. Br. Claims App'x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
November 7, 2017) and Reply Brief, ("Reply Br.," filed March 12, 2018);
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed June 12, 2017); the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 10, 2018); and the originally-filed
Specification ("Spec.," filed September 10, 2012).
2 According to Appellants, the real party-in-interest is Koninklijke Phillips
Electronics N.V. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' recited methods, media, and systems relate to controlling
at least one device, such that a user is allowed "to control specific functions
of devices from their current position, with minimal mental and physical
effort and with minimum errors." Spec., 2: 14--16. As noted above,
claims 1--4 and 7-14 are pending. Claims 1, directed to method for
controlling at least one device, 8, directed to media storing instructions for
controlling devices, and 9, directed to systems for controlling at least one
device, are independent. App. Br. Claims App'x. Claims 2--4 and 7 depend
directly or indirectly from claim 1, and claims 10-14 depend directly or
indirectly from claim 9. Id.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative.
1. A method for controlling at least one device, the method
compnsmg:
detecting a position of a user;
defining at least one activation zone based on the position
of the user, the at least one activation zone being spaced apart
from the user, the activation zone being used for activating the at
least one device;
defining at least one interaction zone based on the position
of the user, the at least one interaction zone being confined to
where a body part of the user is located, wherein at least one
movement of the body part of the user within the interaction zone
controls at least one function of the at least one device after
activating the at least one device from the activation zone; and
updating the at least one interaction zone based on changes
in the position of the user, wherein the at least one activation zone
is spaced apart from the at least one interaction zone.
Id.; see App. Br. 5---6.
2
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
pending claims:
Niwa et al. ("Niwa")
Turner et al. ("Turner")
Vassigh et al. ("Vassigh")
US 2004/0242988 Al Dec. 2, 2004
US 2009/0177327 Al Jul. 9, 2009
US 2011/0193939 Al Aug. 11, 2011
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 7-9, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Niwa and Turner. Final
Act. 3-7. Claims 2--4 and 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
rendered obvious over the combined teachings of Niwa, Turner, and
Vassigh. Id. at 7-10.
Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner's findings in the
Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact appearing below
for emphasis. We address these rejections below.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Niwa, alone or with Turner, teaches the steps
of "detecting a position of a user," "defining at least on activation zone," and
"defining at least on interaction zone" of claim 1 (Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 5,
10-11) and that Niwa teaches the step of "updating the at least one
interaction zone" of claim 1 (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5, 10-11). Further, the
Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had
reason to combine the teachings of Niwa and Turner to achieve the method
of claim 1. Final Act. 6; Ans. 6, 11.
3
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
Niwa discloses a position detector, e.g., cameras 12a and 12b of
Niwa's Figure 2, to detect the position of an operator and the position of an
operator's hand. Final Act. 3--4 (citing Niwa ,r 11); see Niwa ,r 39, Fig. 2.
Thus, Niwa teaches detecting a position of a user, as recited in claim 1.
Niwa's Figure 9 is reproduced below.
FIG. 9
Figure 9 depicts is a flowchart showing an exemplary flow of operations in
the image viewer according to an embodiment of the claimed methods.
4
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
Niwa ,r 23. In step SO 1, the flowchart depicts determining whether the
operator is in the "effective area," and, in step S 13, the flowchart depicts
inquiring whether the operator has moved to another position in or out of the
"effective area." Final Act. 4 (citing Niwa ,r,r 43, 91). Thus, Niwa's
"effective area" corresponds to the recited "activation zone," and, at least
initially, may be spaced apart from the user. Ans. 3, 10; see Final Act. 4.
Because the "effective area" may be defined by the field of view of cameras
12a and 12b (Niwa ,r 43), the Examiner finds that Niwa teaches detecting the
position of the user, e.g., Niwa's operator (Ans. 3, 10).
Referring again to Niwa's Figure 9, once the operator is detected in
the "effective area," the location of virtual plane G is determined in steps
S03-S05. Final Act. 5, Ans. 4--5, 10; see Niwa ,r,r 85-87. The Examiner
finds that virtual plane G separates the activation zone, i.e., the "effective
area," from the interaction zone. Ans. 10. In particular, the Examiner finds
that:
If the operator is in the effective area this triggers the next steps
(activation of the virtual plane measurements and its creation)
which define and create the virtual plane for interaction with the
device. The subsequently created virtual plane separates the user
from the interaction zone on the other side of the plane (users
digits or other body parts must exceed the boundary of the plane
and enter the interaction zone to interact with the system).
Id.; see Spec, Fig. 9 (steps SOI and S05).
Turner teaches an interactive adjustable bed, which detects the
presence of a user and which may make adjustments automatically or in
response to the user's selections. Turner ,r,r 35 (describing user selections
from the menu of Fig. 8), 53 ( describing automatic adjustments in response
to detection of a "snoring event"). "Turner is relied upon solely to reiterate
5
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
that it is known to monitoring a user's location and presence to operate
appliances." Ans. 11. Thus, the Examiner applies Turner to emphasize
what already is taught by Niwa; namely, an activation zone, but Turner
teaches this zone in the context of a bed. Id.; see Spec. 4:20-25, 5:4---6: 17
( describing an activation zone in a bed).
"Appellants disagree that Niwa's effective zone maps onto the
activation zone of claim 1. But even assuming, arguendo, this mapping,
Niwa does not disclose an interaction zone that is spaced apart from the
activation zone." Reply Br. 3. Specifically, Appellants contend that Niwa's
virtual plane functions as a trigger that, when crossed, allows control of a
device, e.g., controller 13 of image viewer 1 ofNiwa's Figure 2. App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3--4. Thus, Appellants contend that Niwa's plane does
not create two separate zones, and that "in Niwa, the activation and control
zones are not separate and distinct, but unitarily joined in the one virtual
plane." Reply Br. 4. We disagree.
6
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
Niwa's Figure 6 is reproduced below.
I)\
/ t ·· \ I , . .
I I ···.. ··· ..
~ I ·' \ f XJ l~. l
l/ "·~
G
l
!- . . .- ~. ,·,~ .- ".-
FIG.6
~'t..~
,~)4~
Figure 6 depicts a drag and drop operation in which an operator inserts a
finger through virtual plane G at point 6B and moves the finger to point 6C
at which it removes the finger from both the plane and the area beyond the
plane. Niwa~~ 78, 79; see id. ~ 68 (showing selection operation of area
6A). As depicted in Figure 6, in each operation, the operator's finger
penetrates to the other side of virtual plane G. The Examiner finds that
7
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
"Niwa teaches an interaction zone (figure 6, virtual plane G) wherein the
operator P brings his or her fingers to an area to perform a function on the
device. The interaction zone is where a body part such as the finger or other
parts are confined in." Final Act. 5; Ans. 4--5. The virtual plane "separates
the user from the interaction zone on the other side of the plane (users digits
or other body parts must exceed the boundary of the plane and enter the
interaction zone to interact with the system)." Ans. 10. We agree.
Further, Niwa teaches that the activation zone. i.e., the "effective
area," is spaced apart from the operator and from the interaction zone. Final
Act. 4; Ans. 3--4. Niwa teaches that virtual plane G is at distance L from the
operator when the operator is in the effective area. Niwa ,r,r 50, 86, 87,
Fig. 4. Thus, we agree that Niwa also teaches each of these limitations.
Finally, the Examiner finds that Niwa teaches implicitly, if not
explicitly, the step of "updating the at least one interaction zone based on
changes in the position of the user." App. Br. Claims App'x. In the Final
Office Action, the Examiner stated:
Niwa may not explicitly teach updating the at least one
interaction zone based on changes in the position of the user. As
noted above, Niwa shows modifying the definition of the virtual
plane based upon, for example, another user requesting to
become the operator or by the user exiting and re-entering the
effective area. However Turner teaches updating the at least one
interaction zone based on changes in the physical position of the
user (paragraph 0026).
Final Act. 5---6 ( emphases added). The citation to Turner here is somewhat
unclear because Turner's Paragraph 26 does not teach or suggest updating an
interaction zone. App. Br. 12-13. However, the Examiner explains that:
In the response to arguments section of the final office action it
was made clear that the examiner believes the Niwa reference
8
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
does teach this claim element. Niwa shows in Figure 9, step 13,
that when the operator moves to another position the process for
redefining the virtual plane is restarted.
Ans. 11. Niwa's step S13 determines whether the operator has moved to an
"other position." Niwa ,r 91, Fig. 9. If so, the flowchart returns to step SO 1
and determines whether the operator is within the "effective area" and then
proceeds to step S03. Id. If not, the flowchart returns directly to step S03,
"so that the view point is determined again or corrected, if necessary, for the
next operation." Id. ,r 91. Regardless whether the operator has moved, the
location of the virtual plane and, as a result, the interaction zone, will be
confirmed or corrected, i.e., updated.
The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
have had reason to combine the teachings of Niwa and Turner to achieve the
methods of claim 1. Final Act. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds that
"Niwa shows the invention, Turner is only used to clarify that the physical
movements of the user can also be tracked." Ans. 5. The Examiner
concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
combine the teachings of the references by known methods to attain
expected results. Id. We agree.
The Examiner must show that the applied references, as combined,
teach or suggest all of the limitations of the rejected claim. Here, the
Examiner has shown that Niwa and Turner teach or suggest the limitations
of independent claim 1. Final Act. 3---6; Ans. 2-5, 10.
The limitations of claim 1 are substantially the same as those recited
in each of independent claims 8 and 9. App. Br. Claims App'x. The
Examiner also relies on Niwa and Turner to teach the similar limitations of
the other independent claims. Final Act. 7; Ans. 6; see App. Br. 14.
9
Appeal2018-004193
Application 13/583,806
Because of the similarities between the limitations of claim 1 and those of
claims 8 and 9, we find that the Examiner adequately shows that the
combination of Niwa and Turner teach or suggest the limitations of those
claims and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
combine the teachings of those references to achieve the recited media and
systems. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in the
concluding claims 1, 8, and 9 are rendered obvious over the combined
teachings of Niwa and Turner.
The Examiner also concludes that claims 2--4, 7, and 10-14, which
depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1 or 9, are rendered
obvious over the combined teachings of Niwa and Turner, alone or in
combination with Vassigh. Final Act. 6-10. Appellants contend that,
because the Examiner erred in rejecting their base claims, claims 1 and 9, we
cannot sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-13, 16-22, and 25, as
well as claim 14. See App. Br. 14, Reply Br. 8. For the reasons set forth
above, we disagree.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1--4 and 7-14; and we sustain the rejections.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4 and 7-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10