Ex Parte Bulan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2017

13441269 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2017)

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.
13/441,269 04/06/2012 Orhan Bulan 20120095USNP-XER2888US01 1088
62095 7590 03/30/2017
FAY SHARPE / XEROX - ROCHESTER
1228 EUCLID AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
THE HALLE BUILDING
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
EXAMINER
HAGHANI, SHADAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ORHAN BULAN, YAO RONG WANG, ZHIGANG FAN,
EDGAR A. BERNAL, ROBERT P. LOCE, and YEQING ZHANG
____________

Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,2691
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ADAM J. PYONIN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–21. Claim 3 has been canceled.
See App. Br. 14 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Xerox Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “a video-based method and
system for determining a length of an available parking space at a given
instant in time.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 and 14, which are exemplary, read as
follows:
1. A method for determining parking availability, the method
comprising:
receiving video data from a sequence of frames taken from
an associated image capture device deployed for monitoring an
unmarked parking area;
estimating a background image associated with a current
frame;
determining objects representing vehicles in a foreground
image from the background image and the current frame;
determining whether the detected vehicles in the
foreground image are stationary or in motion; and,
at a controller, determining a length of a potential parking
space between stationary elements in the foreground image; and,
obtaining from a storage device in communication with
the controller and storing a table associating vehicle lengths with
vehicle classes;
comparing the length of the potential parking space with
the stored vehicle lengths;
in response to the length of the potential parking space
being greater than a vehicle length in the table, classifying the
potential parking space as being an available parking space for a
class of vehicles corresponding with the vehicle length.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the algorithm includes a
function Bt+1 = p * Ft+1 + (1 – p) * Bt, wherein Bt is the
background at time t, Ft+1 is a frame at time t + 1, and p is the
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
3
updating factor for the pixel, wherein the updating factor is
selected from a group consisting:
a “0” value if a vehicle is detected at the pixel location;
a “1” value if another object is detected at a pixel location
previously occupied by a vehicle; and,
a value 0 ≤ p ≤ 1 for all other pixels.
Rejections
Claims 1 and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre (US 2006/0220911 A1;
published Oct. 5, 2006) and Hanisch (US 2012/0113262 A1; published May
10, 2012). Final Act. 2–5.
Claims 2, 4, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, and Ashfaqur
Rahman et al., An Image Based Approach to Compute Object Distance,
International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, vol. 1, no. 4
(2008) (“Rahman”). Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, and Eaton (US
8,094,943 B2; issued Jan. 10, 2012). Final Act. 7–8.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, Eaton, and Massimo
Piccardi, Background Subtraction Techniques: A Review, The ARC Centre
of Excellence for Autonomous Systems (CAS) (University of Technology
Sydney 2004) (“Piccardi”). Final Act. 8.
Claims 8–10 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, and Piccardi. Final
Act. 8–11.
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
4
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, Piccardi, and Naoi
(US 6,141,435; issued Oct. 31, 2000). Final Act. 11–12.
Claims 12 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, and Naoi. Final
Act. 12–14.
Claims 14 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, Piccardi, and A. T.
Nghiem et al., Controlling Background Subtraction Algorithms for Robust
Object Detection, International Conference on Imaging for Crime Detection
and Prevention (2009) (“Nghiem”). Final Act. 14–16.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2–17; Ans. 2–17. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.

Claim 1
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jaupitre
and Hanisch teaches or suggests “obtaining from a storage device in
communication with the controller and storing a table associating vehicle
lengths with vehicle classes,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
5
Appellants contend the combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation because the applied references fail to
teach or suggest a table associating vehicle lengths with vehicle classes, as
required by claim 1. App. Br. 6–8; Reply Br. 3–4. Appellants argue
“Jaupitre simply refers to vehicle models with no specific mention of vehicle
class” and “a vehicle class and a vehicle model are not equivalent terms
having the same meaning.” Reply Br. 3–4. Regarding the Hanisch
reference, Appellants contend “Hanisch discloses a table associating the
number of vehicle axles with vehicle lengths” but not an association of
vehicle length and vehicle class (App. Br. 8), as “Hanisch simply refers to
vehicle type, i.e., number of vehicle axles, with no specific mention of
vehicle class,” and “[t]he number of vehicle axles is not necessarily an
equivalent to vehicle classes” (Reply Br. 4).
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Jaupitre teaches determining parking availability by
analyzing video of a parking lot; measuring the distance between parked
cars, and comparing the measured distance to the length of a user’s vehicle,
which is determined based on the vehicle model of the user’s vehicle.
Ans. 3–4, 9 (citing Jaupitre ¶ 20). Because Jaupitre teaches determining a
length of the vehicle based on the vehicle model, we agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 4, 9) that Jaupitre teaches or suggests obtaining from a
storage device in communication with the controller and storing a table
associating vehicle lengths with vehicle models. We agree with Appellants
that Jaupitre does not explicitly teach associating vehicle lengths with
vehicle classes. However, the Examiner does not find that Jaupitre teaches
associating vehicle lengths with vehicle classes but, instead, finds it would
be obvious to do so based on the teachings of Jaupitre and Hanisch. Final
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
6
Act. 4; Ans. 4, 9–11. Appellants’ contentions fail to persuasively address
the findings of the Examiner regarding what the combined teachings of the
references teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art and, therefore,
are unpersuasive of error. We note for emphasis that, while not cited by the
Examiner, paragraph 40 of Hanisch expressly teaches a table associating
vehicle lengths with vehicle classes.

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Jaupitre and
Hanisch teaches or suggests “in response to the length of the potential
parking space being greater than a vehicle length in the table, classifying the
potential parking space as being an available parking space for a class of
vehicles corresponding with the vehicle length,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch does not
teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 8–9; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants contend the applied references fail to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation because neither Jaupitre nor Hanisch teaches a table
associating vehicle lengths with vehicle classes. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4.
Because, as discussed supra, we disagree with the premise of
Appellants’ contention (that the combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch fails to
teach or suggest a table associating vehicle lengths with vehicle classes), we
are not persuaded by Appellants’ conclusion reached based on that premise.
Appellants further contend the combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation because Jaupitre does not
teach or suggest classifying the potential parking space as being an available
parking space for a class of vehicles corresponding with the vehicle length,
as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8–9 (citing Jaupitre ¶¶ 8, 9). Appellants
contend that Jaupitre, instead, teaches outputting a free parking space
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
7
location. Id. Appellants argue “[t]here is nothing in the cited section of
Jaupitre which would suggest that the server classifies the potential parking
space as being available for a class of vehicles corresponding to the vehicle
length.” App. Br. 9.
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. The Examiner
does not find that Jaupitre explicitly teaches the disputed limitation but,
instead, finds the disputed limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art in view of the combined teachings of the references. Ans. 11–
13. Appellants fail to persuasively address the Examiner’s findings
regarding the teachings of Jaupitre regarding “comparing one or more free
parking space lengths and the information representative of the length of the
user’s vehicle” and “send[ing] the user only free parking space locations
whose length is sufficiently greater than the length of the user’s vehicle to
enable the user to park correctly.” Jaupitre ¶ 20. Jaupitre, therefore, teaches
or suggests determining whether each potential parking space is available for
the user’s vehicle and, in response to the length of the potential parking
space being greater than a vehicle length, identifying or classifying the
potential parking space as being an available parking space for a model of
vehicle corresponding to the model of the user’s vehicle. As discussed
supra we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the
combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch teaches or suggests an association of
vehicle class with vehicle length. As such, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding the combination of Jaupitre and Hanisch teaches
or suggests the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1; and claims 2, 4–13, 15–19, and 21, which recite
corresponding limitations and were not separately argued with particularity.
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
8
Claims 14 and 20
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jaupitre,
Hanisch, Piccardi, and Nghiem teaches or suggests “wherein the updating
factor is selected from a group consisting . . . a ‘1’ value if another object is
detected at a pixel location previously occupied by a vehicle,” as recited in
claim 14, and similarly recited in claim 20?
Appellants contend the combination of Jaupitre, Hanisch, Piccardi,
and Nghiem fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 10–
11; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellants contend Ngheim teaches that a value of “1” is
added to a counter if a car is detected in a certain frame whereas “[t]he claim
assigns a ‘1’ to its updating factor if a new object is detected in a current
frame that was previously occupied by a car–i.e., the detected object did not
previously occupy or appear in previous frames.” App. Br. 11.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
does not rely on Ngheim’s teaching regarding updating the counter for
teaching the disputed limitation. Instead, the Examiner relies on Nghiem’s
teaching regarding absorbing the region inside the box immediately into the
background. See Final Act. 14–16; Ans. 16–17 (citing Ngheim 4, “left
column, under equation 2”). Because Appellants’ contention fails to address
the express findings of the Examiner, it is unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 14 and 20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4–21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2017-000696
Application 13/441,269
9
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