Ex Parte Hammarström et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 2, 201613256501 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/256,501 09/14/2011 Per Jonas Hammarstrom 12400-258 1071 80711 7590 12/05/2016 ROT /Ann Arhnr EXAMINER 524 South Main Street ZHOU, ZHIHAN Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2482 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/05/2016 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 Ex parte PER JONAS HAMMARSTROM and OGNJAN HEDBERG Appeal 2016-0005321 Application 13/256,501 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants identify Autoliv Development AB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 and 8—15, which are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 6. Claims 2—7 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to “a vision method [and system] for automatically detecting objects in front of a motor vehicle.” Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed element: 1. A vision method for automatically detecting real objects in a scene in front of a motor vehicle, comprising the steps of: detecting images from a region in the front of the vehicle by a vehicle mounted imaging means; generating from the detected images a ground plane, a processed image containing regions-of-interest and one disparity information and vehicle-to-scene distance information; comparing the regions-of-interest of the processed image to template objects relating to possible existence of a variety of differently shaped real objects in front of the motor vehicle, the template objects all being rectangular two-dimensional multi pixel images of the same size and shape with a height-to-width ratio being in a range of two through four and arranged to stand on the ground plane, the size of all template objects corresponding to a size of a smallest real object of the variety of differently shaped real objects to be detected', calculating for each of the template objects a score relating to a match between the processed image and the template object; 2 Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 identifying large scores of sufficient absolute magnitude of the calculated scores; applying an algorithm adapted to identify groups of the large scores; and assigning the identified group of large scores to a single match real object out of the variety of differently shaped real objects. Appeal Br. 14. (Claims App’x). B. The Rejections on Anneal The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 8—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirvonen (US 2005/0232463 Al; Oct. 20, 2005), in view of Greene (US 2008/0312831 Al; Dec. 18, 2008), in view of Friedrichs (US 2008/0273806 Al; Nov. 6, 2008), and further in view of Chang (Peng Chang et al., “Stereo-Based Object Detection, Classification, and Quantitative Evaluation with Automotive Applications,” in IEEE Computer Science Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, June 2005). Final Act. 3. The Examiner additionally rejects claims 1 and 8—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hirvonen, in view of Greene, in view of Kondo (US 2009/0175496 Al; July 9, 2009), and further in view of Chang. Final Act. 10. ANALYSIS A. Rejection of Claims 1 and 8—15 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) Based on Hirvonen, Greene, Friedrichs, and Chang Appellants argue Hirvonen, Greene, Friedrichs, and Chang, whether considered individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest “the 3 Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 template objects all being rectangular two-dimensional multi-pixel images of the same size and shape with a height-to-width ratio being in a range of two through four and arranged to stand on the ground plane, the size of all template objects corresponding to a size of a smallest real object of the variety of differently shaped real objects to be detected,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 15. See Appeal Br. 6—10; see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants argue Hirvonen does not utilize templates that are two-dimensional, rectangular multi-pixel images of a same size and shape, but instead utilizes templates of actual objects (e.g., automobiles, pedestrians). See Appeal Br. 7 (citing Hirvonen Tflf22, 26, 29). Appellants argue Greene does not disclose using template objects to identify real objects, and thus, does not disclose template objects that are two-dimensional, rectangular multi-pixel images of the same size and shape. See Appeal Br. 7—8 (citing Greene H 61, 77, 178). Appellants argue Friedrichs’ pixel blocks are not all arranged to stand on the ground plane, but are stacked in rows on top of one another, and further argue Friedrichs fails to teach or suggest changing the shape of the pixel blocks to the proportions specified in claims 1 and 15. See Appeal Br. 8—9; see also Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants argue Chang discloses using grid points for identifying locations of potential objects, and grid points are not rectangular two-dimensional objects. See Appeal Br. 9. We do not find these arguments persuasive. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of 4 Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appellants’ argument attacks Hirvonen for failing to teach or suggest template objects being rectangular two-dimensional multi-pixel images of a same size and shape, but the Examiner relied upon Friedrichs for teaching rectangular two- dimensional multi-pixel images of a same size and shape. See Final Act. 4— 5; see also Ans. 18—19, 21—22. Similarly, Appellants’ argument attacks Greene for failing to teach or suggest template objects being rectangular two-dimensional multi-pixel images of a same size and shape, but as stated, the Examiner relied upon Friedrichs for teaching rectangular two- dimensional multi-pixel images of a same size and shape. See Final Act. 4— 5; see also Ans. 20-22. Further, Appellants’ argument attacks Chang for failing to teach or suggest template objects being rectangular, but the Examiner relied upon Friedrichs for teaching rectangular objects. See Final Act. 4—5; see also Ans. 20—24. Appellants’ argument that Friedrichs teaches or suggests scenarios where the pixel blocks do not stand on the ground plane is not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Friedrichs discloses a scenario where the pixel blocks stand on the ground plane. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 22 (explaining that “in [Friedrichs’] FIGs. 4 and 5 and [0042]-[0043], the template object is clearly standing on a ground plane”). Further, Appellants’ argument that Friedrichs fails to teach or suggest pixel blocks with proportions specified in claims 1 and 15 attacks Friedrichs for failing to teach or suggest template objects with a height-to-width ratio being in a range of two through four, but the Examiner relied upon Chang for teaching 5 Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 rectangular templates having a height-to-width ratio of at least two. See Final Act. 5. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hirvonen, Greene, Friedrichs, and Chang teaches or suggests all the elements of independent claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. We further sustain the rejection of claims 8—14, not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 10. B. Rejection of Claims 1 and 8—15 under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) Based on Hirvonen, Greene, Rondo, and Chang Appellants argue Hirvonen, Greene, Kondo, and Chang, whether considered individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest “the template objects all being rectangular two-dimensional multi-pixel images of the same size and shape with a height-to-width ratio being in a range of two through four and arranged to stand on the ground plane, the size of all template objects corresponding to a size of a smallest real object of the variety of differently shaped real objects to be detected,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 15. See Appeal Br. 11—12. Appellants incorporate their previous arguments regarding Hirvonen, Greene, and Chang from the prior rejection. See Appeal Br. 11. Appellants argue also that Kondo teaches determining pixels of interest, determining “small regions” around the pixels of interest, and subsequently combining the small regions into “templates,” but fails to teach or suggest that the small regions all stand on the ground plane and have the proportions specified in claims 1 and 15. See Appeal Br. 11—12. 6 Appeal 2016-000532 Application 13/256,501 We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellants’ arguments regarding Hirvonen, Greene, and Chang are not persuasive for the reasons previously discussed. Appellants’ argument regarding Kondo attacks the reference for failing to teach or suggest template objects with a height-to- width ratio being in a range of two to four and arranged to stand on a ground plane, but the Examiner relied on Chang for teaching rectangular templates having a height-to-width ratio of at least two and standing on a ground plane. See Final Act. 12; see also Ans. 25—26. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Hirvonen, Greene, Kondo, and Chang teaches or suggests all the elements of independent claims 1 and 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 15. We further sustain the rejection of claims 8—14, not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 13. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 8—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation