Ex Parte Essa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2016

13075947 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/075,947 03/30/2011 Irfan Aziz Essa
77755 7590 08/23/2016
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
c/o Ference & Associates LLC
409 Broad Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15143
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.
09DIS303MEDIA 820.031 2671
EXAMINER
BAILEY, FREDERICK D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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
Exparte IRFAN AZIZ ESSA, MATTHIAS GRUNDMANN,
JESSICA KATE HODGINS, KIRWAN KIM,
IAIN ALEXANDER MATTHEWS, and ARIEL SHAMIR
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHN F. HORVATH, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-22, 24, and 25. Claim 23 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to utilizing motion fields to predict
evolution in dynamic scenes (e.g., team sports (i-f 3)). (Abstract.)
Claims 1 and 4 are exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for predicting evolution of motions of
active objects comprising:
accessing active object position data stored in a memory
device, said active object position data including positioning
information of a plurality of individual active objects; and
using one or more processors to perform:
extracting a plurality of individual active object motions
from the active object position data;
constructing a global flow field using the plurality of
individual active object motions; and
using the global flow field to predict one or more points of
convergence at one or more spatial locations that active objects
are proceeding towards at a future point in time.
4. The method according to claim 3, further
comprising using the one or more processors to perform:
forming a top down warped image from the plurality of
video images;
wherein:
the top down warped image is formed via warping and
aligning the plurality of video images to create the top down
warped image; and
the top down warped image represents a top down view of
a physical location.
2
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 14--16, 19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Wagg (US 2009/0059007 Al; publ. Mar. 5,
2009) and Curry (US 2010/0026809 Al; publ. Feb. 4, 2010).
Claims 4--7, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagg, Curry, and Pal (US 2007 /0031062 A 1; publ.
Feb. 8, 2007).
Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagg, Curry, Li (US 2005/0117061 Al; publ. June 2,
2005) and Sano (US 2006/0013480 Al; publ. Jan. 19, 2006).
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wagg, Curry, and Ahammad (US 2008/0310734 Al; publ. Dec. 18,
2008).
Claims 12 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagg, Curry, Ahammad, Hua (US 2009/0222388 Al;
publ. Sept. 3, 2009), and Atkins (US 2003/0026504 Al; publ. Feb. 6, 2003).
Claims 13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wagg, Curry, Ahammad, Hua, Atkins, and Tamir (US
2008/0192116 Al; publ. Aug. 14, 2008). 1
Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wagg, Curry, Tamir, and Sigel (US 6,545,705 Bl; iss. Apr. 8, 2003).
1 Appellants do not present any arguments with respect to the rejections of
dependent claims 12, 13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Thus, any
such arguments are deemed to be waived.
3
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Wagg and Curry
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 12-13;
see also Reply Br. 16-17) that the combination of Wagg and Curry would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation "a global flow field."
The Examiner found that tracking the velocity and acceleration for the
players of Wagg and the relative motion of such players, as illustrated in
Figure 3B of Wagg, collectively correspond to the limitation "constructing a
global flow field using the plurality of individual active object motions."
(Final Act. 6; see also Ans. 3--4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Claims 1 recites "a global flow field." One relevant plain meaning of
"global" is "applying to a whole." MERRIMAN-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE
DICTIONARY 496 (10th ed. 1999). Furthermore, one relevant plain meaning
of "flow" is "the direction of movement" (id. at 448), and one relevant plain
meaning of "field" is "a space on which something is drawn or projected"
(id. at 433). Such definitions are consistent with Appellants' Specification,
which provides the following:
Some primary characteristics of example embodiments
described herein are thus extracting ground-level motion from
individual objects' movement, which may be captured from
multiple-views; generating a flow field from a sparse set of
individual objects' motions (a motion field on the ground);
detecting the locations where the motion field converges; and
inferring the scene evolution. Various example applications for
embodiments are noted throughout, and again the sport of soccer
is simply used as a representative context.
(i-f 24 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret "global flow
4
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
field" as a space on which all movement is drawn or projected, and includes
for example, the motions of all players in a playing surface.
Wagg relates to "tracking objects within video images of the objects
captured by a video camera" (i-f 2), for example, tracking players of a sports
team (i-f 34). Figure 3B of Wagg, which illustrates a schematic diagram of
object tracking (i-f 16), is reproduced below:
In reference to Figure 3B, Wagg explains that "the 3D model of the football
pitch can be augmented with lines to [2]30.1, to [2]32.1, to [2]34.1, to
[2]36.1, to [2]38.1, [to] 240.1 which are positioned relative to the graphic
indication of the position of the players to reflect the relative direction of
motion of the players." (i-f 50.) Furthermore, Wagg explains that "a motion
probability [of players] is based on distance from position predicted by a
recursive least-squares estimator using starting position, velocity and
acceleration parameters." (i-f 43.) Because Figure 3 of Wagg illustrates lines
to indicate relative motion of all players in a playing area (i.e., football
5
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
pitch) and player tracking includes player velocity and acceleration, Wagg
teaches the limitation "a global flow field."
Appellants argue "[a]s may be understood from reference to
Applicant's specification, a 'motion field' or as currently claimed a 'global
flow field' is 'a dense motion field on the ground-plane' that naturally
encompasses more than 'the relative direction of motion of the players on
the field."' (App. Br. 12.) However, Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not require "a
dense motion field on the ground-plane."
Appellants further argue that "Wagg is directed to player tracking,
rather than 'constructing a global flow field using the plurality of individual
object motions"' and "states that ' ... a motion probability is based on
distance from position predicted by a[ n] estimator using start position,
velocity and acceleration parameters'" and accordingly, "Wagg determines
individual player direction/motion, but does not create 'global flow field."'
(App. Br. 13 (emphases omitted); see also Reply Br. 16-17.) However, as
discussed previously, the broadest reasonable interpretation of "global flow
field" encompasses the player tracking of Wagg, which determines player
position, velocity, acceleration, and direction along the playing surface.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wagg and
Curry would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation "a global flow field."
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 15;
see also Reply Br. 18-19) that the combination of Wagg and Curry would
not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation "using the global flow field to predict one or more points of
6
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
convergence at one or more spatial locations that active objects are
proceeding towards at a future point in time."
Independent claim 1 recites "to predict one or more points of
convergence" (emphasis added). One relevant plain meaning of "converge"
is "to tend or move toward one point or one another." MERRIMAN-
WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 253 (10th ed. 1999). This definition
of "converge" is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which provides
the following:
Using the sport of soccer as a representative example, the
motion field is been defined as a global or group tendency
reflecting the play (or the strategy or intention of the players). In
this context, a point of convergence (POC) is defined as the
spatial location that play evolution is proceeding toward in the
near future. Embodiments provide for detection of POC(s) of the
game by finding locations where the motion field merges.
(i-f 50 (emphasis added).) Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification, we interpret "point of
convergence" as moving toward one point, and includes for example,
multiple soccer players moving towards one point.
The Examiner found that the prediction of player collision by the
system of Curry corresponds to the limitation "using the global flow field to
predict one or more points of convergence at one or more spatial locations
that active objects are proceeding towards at a future point in time." (Final
Act. 6; see also Ans. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Curry relates to "determining the position and other related data of ...
players in a game of play or sporting event and selecting video and audio
data relating to the game or sporting event." (i-f 3.) Curry explains that a
position information sensor is attached to a single player to provide "position
7
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
information of that player, in the form of data concerning direction of
movement, speed of movement, including lateral, rotational, and vertical
data." (i-f 63.) Curry further explains that "collisions or 'big hits' in
American football can be identified by the system by capturing the velocity
of the player that has the ball and the velocity of the nearest defender" and
that "[t]his information can then be used to predict when the two fast moving
players will collide in the game." (i-f 119.) Because Curry explains that
position information sensors are attached to players to determine player
information (e.g., position, direction, and speed) and that collisions between
players can be predicted, Curry teaches the limitation "using the global flow
field to predict one or more points of convergence at one or more spatial
locations that active objects are proceeding towards at a future point in
time."
Appellants argue that "[ w ]hile perhaps similar in other contexts, the
term 'collision' as used in Curry and the claimed 'point of convergence'
have quite different meanings entirely." (App. Br. 15; see also Reply
Br. 18-19.) However, as discussed previously, the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "point of convergence" encompasses the system of Curry,
which predicts a collision between two players.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wagg and
Curry would have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitation "using the global flow field to predict one or more points of
convergence at one or more spatial locations that active objects are
proceeding towards at a future point in time."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1under35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 depend from claim 1, and Appellants
8
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 1.
Independent claims 14 and 24 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 14 and 24, as well as dependent
claims 15, 16, 19, and 24, which are not separately argued, for the same
reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection-Wagg, Curry, and Pal
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 17; see also
Reply Br. 20-21) that the combination of Wagg, Curry, and Pal would not
have rendered obvious dependent claim 4, which includes the limitation "a
top down warped image ... the top down warped image represents a top
down view of a physical location."
The Examiner found that the Keyframe Stitcher of Pal, for building
static mosaic panoramic images by warping video frames and overlaying
such frames, corresponds to the limitation "forming a top down warped
image." (Final Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 5.) We do not agree.
Pal relates to "construction of mosaiced panoramic images." (i-f 2.)
Pal explains that a "Keyframe Stitcher ... provides an efficient technique
for building static mosaic panoramic images" such that "the Keyframe
Stitcher is also capable of outputting intermediate 'warped' video frames
which are mapped as 'overlays' to the static panorama" and "capable of
9
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
constructing 'animated panoramas' for action sequences occurring within a
scene." (i-f 24.)
Although the Examiner cited to the Keyframe Stitcher of Pal (Final
Act. 10-11; see also Ans. 5), in which "warped" video frames are mapped as
"overlays," the Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a
finding that Pal teaches the limitation "forming a top down warped image,"
much less "[a] top down warped image [that] represents a top down view of
a physical location." Nor has the Examiner found that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been able to use the stitching and warping
techniques of Pal to form such "a top down warped image" from the
multiple of images of Wagg.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "Pal is
not concerned with forming a top down warped image such that 'the top
down warped image represents a top down view of a physical location"'
because "Pal is focused on a method of forming 'animated panoramic'
images for compression." (App. Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 20-21.)
Therefore, on the record before us, we do not agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Wagg, Curry, and Pal would have rendered obvious
dependent claim 4, which includes the limitation "a top down warped image
... the top down warped image represents a top down view of a physical
location."
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 5-7 depend from dependent claim 4. We
do not sustain the rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons discussed with respect to dependent claim 4.
10
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
Dependent claim 17 recites limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to dependent claim 4. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 7, as
well as dependent claim 18, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 4.
§ 103 Rejection-Wagg, Curry, Tamir, and Sigel
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 19; see also
Reply Br. 22-23) that the combination of Wagg, Curry, Tamir, and Sigel
would not have rendered obvious dependent claim 25, which includes the
limitation "defining a region of interest using the one or more candidate
points of convergence."
The Examiner further found that the tracking system of Tamir, in
which a robotic camera automatically locks on the predicted location of a
player, corresponds to the limitation "region of interest using the one or
more candidate points of convergence." (Final Act. 19; see also Ans. 6.)
The Examiner also found that the camera of Sigel, which forms a time
sequence scene for a line of interest (e.g., finish line), corresponds to the
limitation "wherein the region of interest does not currently contain any of
the plurality of individual active objects." (Final Act. 19; see also Ans. 6-
7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Tamir relates to "real-time object tracking and motion capture in
sports events." (i-f l .) In one embodiment, Tamir explains that a "robotic
camera automatically locks on the predicted location of this player (i.e.[,] the
location where the player was supposed to be based on his motion history)
and zooms in to provide a high magnification video stream." (i-f 76.)
Because the robotic camera of Tamir can lock onto a predicted location
11
Appeal2015-004027
Application 13/075,947
based upon player motion history, Tamir teaches the limitation "defining a
region of interest using the one or more candidate points of convergence."
Appellants argue that "Sigel teaches a singular focus on the finish line
(or intermediate station), not a 'region of interest' where the 'region of
interest' is defined 'using the one or more candidate points of
convergence."' (App. Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 22-23.) However, the
Examiner cited to Tamir, rather than Sigel for teaching the limitation
"defining a region of interest using the one or more candidate points of
convergence." (Final Act. 19; see also Ans. 6.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wagg,
Curry, Tamir, and Sigel would have rendered obvious dependent claim 25,
which includes the limitation "defining a region of interest using the one or
more candidate points of convergence."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8-16, 19-22, 24, and
25 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 4--7, 17, and 18 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12