Ex Parte Hirakawa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

14165989 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
14/165,989 01/28/2014 Kunio HIRAKAWA P45305 6673
52123 7590 05/02/2017
GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C.
1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE
RESTON, VA 20191
EXAMINER
FEACHER, LORENA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
gbpatent@gbpatent.com
greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUNIO HIRAKAWA, YOSHINOBU UNO, and
YUICHINAKAHATA
Appeal 2017-0021021
Application 14/165,9892
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 12, 15—19, 22, 24, and 26—37. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Our decision references Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
May 31, 2016) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 22, 2016), and the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sept. 23, 2016), Advisory Action
(“Adv. Act.,” mailed Mar. 18, 2016) and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed Dec. 31, 2015).
2 Appellants identify Panasonic Intellectual Property Management Co., Ltd.
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a customer behavior analysis
device, customer behavior analysis system and customer behavior analysis
method for performing analysis of the behavior of customers in commercial
establishments.” Spec. 1,11. 4—6.
Claims 22, 24, and 26 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 22, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
22. A monitoring system comprising:
an imaging device that captures a moving picture around
an access area including a self-service area;
a recorder that stores frames of a moving picture captured
by an imaging device;
a tracker, implemented by a processor, that receives
frames of the moving picture from the recorder, and tracks
persons in the access area based on analyzing the received
frames;
a detector, implemented by a processor, that detects, for
each of the persons being tracked by the tracker, an entering
region from which each of the tracked persons has entered the
access area and a leaving region from which each of the tracked
persons has left the access area,
a person detector, implemented by a processor, that
determines whether the entering region and the leaving region of
each of the detected persons are a same region, and detects a
passerby person of the tracked persons, without taking into
account of how long each of the tracked persons has been in the
access area, when the entering region and the leaving region of
each of the tracked persons are determined to be different,
the person detector further analyzes, for each of target
persons, which are among the tracked persons, other than the
passerby person, how long each of the target persons has been in
the access area, and detects a non-completing person of the target
2
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
persons, when each of the target persons has been in the access
area less than a predetermined time period; and
a generator that generates an output including information
of the non-completing person.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 12, 15—19, 22, 24, and 26—37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 18, 19, 22, 24, 26, 29, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sharma (US 2008/0159634 Al, pub. July 3,
2008) and Redman (US 2006/0010027 Al, pub. Jan. 12, 2006).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma, Redman, and Kato (US 2006/0093185 Al, pub. May 4, 2006).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma, Redman, and Brodsky (US 2004/0156530 Al, pub. Aug. 12, 2004).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma, Redman, and Tomohiro (JP2012-173903, pub. Sept. 10, 2012).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma, Redman, and Gil (US 2007/0067203 Al, pub. Mar. 22, 2007).
Claims 27, 28, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sharma, Redman, and Akisada (US 2008/0304706 Al,
pub. Dec. 11, 2008).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Sharma, Redman, and Buehler (US 2007/0283004 Al, pub. Dec. 6, 2007).
3 We treat the rejection of claims 24 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as withdrawn. See Adv. Act. 2; see also Ans. 30.
3
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Sharma, Redman, and Momose (US 2005/0209963, pub.
Sept. 22, 2005).4
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Independent Claims 22, 24, and 26, and Dependent Claims 12, 16—19, and
29-37
Appellants argue claims 22, 24, and 26 as a group. App. Br. 13—20.
We select independent claim 24 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 24. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS
BankInt7, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1300 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct.
at 2355. The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at
4 We treat as inadvertent error the Examiner’s identification of Momose as
“Yuichiro (US 2005/020996).” Final Act. 32; see also Ans. 28. The Notice
of References (PTO-Form 892) mailed on December 31, 2005 correctly
identifies the document as “US-2005/0209963 Al” to Yuichiro Momose.
4
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts,” id., e.g., to an
abstract idea. If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the
inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the
elements of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered
combination”’ to determine whether there are additional elements that
“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice
Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that “all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1293. We, therefore, look to whether
the claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.
See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Turning to the framework set forth in Alice, and as the first step of
that analysis, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that claims 22, 24, and 26
are directed to “customer behavior monitoring and analysis,” which the
Examiner determines is a fundamental economic practice, a method of
organizing human activity, mental processes (e.g., comparing frames),
and/or a mathematical formula, and thus an abstract idea. See Final Act. 2—
3,7. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that the method of
claim 24 recites limitations relating to data gathering and analysis, each of
which is an abstract idea. See Final Act. 3^4 (citing Classen
Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011) and
SmartGene Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs. SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed.
Cir. 2014)), 7—8 (citing Classen and SmartGene).
5
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Referencing the July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80
Fed. Reg. 45429 (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-
update.pdf) (hereinafter “July 2015 Update”), Appellants first assert that
“[Ejxaminers are admonished to only find an abstract idea when the concept
in question parallels one found to be abstract in a court decision.” App. Br.
15. Next, Appellants contend that Classen compares known immunization
results, and is not analogous to determine whether the entering and leaving
regions are the same, as recited in claim 24. Id. at 16; see also Reply Br. 3.
Appellants similarly argue that SmartGene does not recite limitations
analogous to the detecting limitations of claim 24 or any other limitation in
the claim. App. Br. 16—17; see also Reply Br. 3. And Appellants assert that
the Examiner “asserted that the other recited limitations are directed to
abstract ideas such as capturing images” or “image analysis,” but the
Examiner “did not identify a court decision that indicates ‘capturing images’
or ‘image analysis are abstract ideas.” App. Br. 17. Then, Appellants
conclude that the Examiner’s rejection did not establish that the claim is
directed to an abstract idea. Id. We disagree.
To the extent Appellants suggest that the July 2015 Update requires
the Examiner to perform particular required steps in specific ways to
establish that claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea, the July 2015 Update
sets forth no such requirement. Instead, 35U.S.C. § 132 sets forth a more
general prima facie notice requirement by notifying the applicant for the
reasons for the rejection together with such information as may be useful in
judging the propriety of continuing with prosecution of the application. See,
e.g.,In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also July 2015
6
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Update 6 (setting forth a general notice requirement to establish a prima
facie rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101); May 2016 Memorandum on
Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the
Applicant’s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection 2 (available
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-
memo.pdf) (hereinafter “May 2016 Guidance”) (“the rejection . . . must
provide an explanation . . . which [is] sufficiently clear and specific to
provide applicant sufficient notice of the reasons for ineligibility.”)
(emphasis added). Here, the Examiner has more than satisfied the notice
requirement in her articulation of the abstract idea.
We are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s determination that the
claim 24 is directed to an abstract idea. For example, claim 24 is a method
that recites the following steps: (1) recording frames of a moving picture
around an access area; (2) receiving the frames; (3) tracking persons based
on analyzing the received frames; (4) detecting an entering region and a
leaving region of the access area for each person; (5) determining whether
the entering region and leaving region are the same; (6) detecting a passerby
person when the entering region and leaving region are different;
(7) analyzing how long each tracked person has been in the access area;
detecting a non-completing person when the target person has been in the
access area less than a predetermined time period; and (8) generating an
output including information of the non-completing person. Thus, claim 24
recites collecting information (steps (1) and (2)), processing information
(steps (3)—(7)), and generating an output (step (8)). Our reviewing court has
held that collecting information, including when limited to particular
content, analyzing it, and outputting the result is within the realm of abstract
7
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
ideas. See, e.g., Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed Cir. 2016); In re TLI Commc ’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
613 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790
F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); and CyberSource
Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The focus of the claim 24, as set forth by the claimed steps described
above, is not directed to an improvement to relevant technology, such as
“imaging technology” (Reply Br. 5), but rather to implementation of the
abstract idea itself. The Specification supports this view. Notably, even
though claim 24 recites physical components, such as a recorder and
processor, the Specification makes clear that the recited physical
components merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the
abstract idea of monitoring and analyzing customer behavior. See Spec.
1:15—21, 16:15—20, 20:21—22. The Specification’s emphasis that it is a
“primary object of the invention ... to allow a user to readily know the
status of occurrence of persons who approached the self-service area but
gave up completing self-service action of choosing and picking up an item
from a self-service area,” as well as its indication that the invention relates to
“performing analysis of the behavior of customers in commercial
establishments” also underscores that claim 24 is directed to the abstract
concept of customer behavior monitoring and analysis, and not to an
improvement in computers and/or technology. Spec. 1:4—6, 2:22—3:2; see
also July 2015 Update 6 (indicating that the Examiner may use Appellants’
disclosure to explain why a claim is directed to an abstract idea).
8
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, Appellants argue that
the Examiner “fails to properly explain the rationale underlying her
conclusion that the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception.” App. Br. 18. Yet, the Examiner explains that
the elements of claim 24 “do not add meaningful limitations beyond further
narrowing the abstract idea and thus do not amount to significantly more.”
Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds that claim 24 additionally recites an
imaging device, a processor, and a monitoring device, which are generic
computer components that do not amount to significantly more. Id.
Considering the elements of claim 24, both individually and as an ordered
combination, we do not find any inventive concept significantly more than
the abstract idea of monitoring and analyzing customer behavior.
Appellants assert that claim 24 recites a “specific and detailed ordered
combination,” copy the recitations of claim 24, and assert that “the recited
specific ordered combination of the limitations [enables] a non-completing
person [to] be reliably detected from the images, and the detected non­
completing person can be used with a POS system to enhance the function of
the POS system.” App. Br. 18—19. Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive, at
least because claim 24 does not recite a POS system.
Appellants further argue that “the[] limitations [of claim 24], when
taken as an ordered combination, provide unconventional steps that confine
the abstract idea to a particular use application (e.g., POS system).” Id. at
19; see also Reply Br. 5 (the ordered combination recites an “improvement
in the imaging technology” that transforms the abstract idea “into a practical
application of the abstract idea”). Yet, limiting the use of the abstract idea to
a particular technological environment does not make the claims any less
9
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
abstract. See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010)). Here, the ordered combination does not add
anything to the abstract idea that is not already present when the steps are
considered individually.
We also are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contention about pre­
emption. See Reply Br. 6 (“Incidentally, the claims do not preempt all ways
of customer behavior monitoring or analyzing human behavior”’). While
pre-emption “might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to
promote it, ‘thereby thwarting the primary object of the patent laws’” {Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293), “the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility” (Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
We are not persuaded for the reasons set forth above that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24, and claims 22 and 26, which
falls with claim 24. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 12,
16—19, and 29-37, which are not separately argued.
Dependent Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 26, and recites “search[ing] for a second
person when a first person found in a first frame has disappeared. ...” and
“link[ing] the first person and the second person so that the tracker tracks the
second person as a same person as the first person.”
Appellants contend that claim 15 as a whole “provides a solution to
the problems in computer based object tracking.” App. Br. 21. In particular,
Appellants assert that due to reasons, such as congestion around a salad bar,
tracking of an object in a designated area may terminate before the object
10
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
leaves the designated area, causing an inability to determine whether an
entering region and leaving region are the same and compromising
reliability. Id. Appellants assert that claim 15, thus, is rooted in object
tracking and similar to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Id. We do not agree that DDR Holdings is
analogous.
In that case, the claims were directed to a system that modified the
conventional web browsing experience by directing a user of a host website
who clicks an advertisement to a “store within a store” still on the host
website, rather than to a website of the advertiser. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d
at 1258. This change to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol was a new solution to a problem encountered on the
website, namely the threat of losing customer’s with a click of a link. Id. at
1257. The Federal Circuit held that the claims were directed to statutory
subject matter because they claim a solution “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks.” Id.
Here, the solution to object tracking solved by the corrector of
claimed 15 is not rooted in computer technology, but rather in
implementation on generic computer components of the abstract idea itself.
The corrector of claim 15 performs steps of searching information and
linking information (e.g., analyzing information and processing
information). As such, each of the steps recite an abstract idea. Considered
individually and as part of an ordered combination, the steps are insufficient
to remove claim 15 from the realm of the abstract.
11
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15 under 25
U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims 27 and 28
Claim 27 depends from claim 22, and further recites that the
monitoring system comprises a display that displays certain information.
Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and recites further limitations regarding
information displayed on the display. Appellants argue that claims 27
and 28 recite limitations that, as an ordered combination, amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. App. Br. 22. In this regard,
Appellants contend that “the user can confirm whether there was an
erroneous detection of a non-completing person.” Id. Appellants assert that
“similarly to claim 15, claims 22 and 27 provide a solution to the problems
in the computer-based object detecting, which is necessarily rooted in
computer technology, similar to the additional elements in DDR Holdings.”
Id. But we find no parallels in claims 22 and 27 to those in DDR Holdings.
Nor do we see anything in the limitations of claims 27 and 28, considered
individually or as an ordered combination, that amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27 and 28
under 25 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
Independent Claims 22, 24, and 26, and Dependent Claims 18, 19, 35,
and 37
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 22, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
because the combination of Sharma and Redman does not disclose or
suggest
12
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
a detector, implemented by a processor, that detects, for
each of the persons being tracked by the tracker, an entering
region from which each of the tracked persons has entered the
access area and a leaving region from which each of the tracked
persons has left the access area, a person detector, implemented
by a processor, that determines whether the entering region and
the leaving region of each of the detected persons are a same
region, and detects a passerby person of the tracked persons,
without taking into account of how long each of the tracked
persons has been in the access area, when the entering region and
the leaving region of each of the tracked persons are determined
to be different,
as recited in claim 22 and similarly recited in claims 24 and 26. App.
Br. 23-27.
The Examiner cites Sharma at Figures 4 and 5 and at paragraphs 111—
116 and 145—146, and Redman at paragraph 45 for this limitation. Final
Act. 13—18, 21. In particular, in the Final Office Action the Examiner relies
on Sharma for disclosing a detector that detects, for each of the persons
being tracked, an entering region and a leaving region of an access area, and
detects a passerby person, without taking into account how long each of the
tracked persons has been in the access area, when the entering region and
leaving region are determined to be different, as recited in claim 22 and
similarly recited in claims 24 and 26. Id. at 13—14, 16—17, 21. The
Examiner then, in seeming contradiction of the above findings regarding
Sharma’s detection of the claimed entering and leaving regions and claimed
passerby, acknowledges that Sharma does not explicitly teach (1) detecting
the entering and leaving regions for each tracked person and (2) detecting a
passerby when the entering region and leaving regions are different and
without taking into account how long the person has been in the access area,
but that Redman does disclose such limitations. Id. at 14—15, 17—18, 21.
13
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
Sharma relates to analyzing a category in a plurality of categories in a
physical space based on the visual characterization, such as behavior
analysis or segmentation, of persons in the physical space. Sharma 1 5.
Insights are obtained about shopper traffic patterns including “common
paths used to enter and exit the category.” Id. Ull 1—12. Insights from the
analysis enable retailers to identify locations where shoppers will be more
receptive to marketing initiatives. Id. 1116.
Exemplary shopping interaction levels can be used as a criteria for the
behavioral analysis of persons in a category using computer vision based
tracking. Id. 1145. A shopping interaction level can be measured based on
a temporal attribute of the person-tracking for the customer. Id. 1146. For
example, if there is no change in velocity, the customer’s interaction level is
measured at a “passer-by” level. Id.
Redman relates to optimizing product sales revenues and customer
service by tracking customer movement through a store. Redman 12. Paths
of a plurality of customers are correlated to determine traffic patterns of
customers. Id. 156. In some instances, path data indicates locations where
a disproportionate number of customers reverse direction in an aisle. Id.
Placements of items within the store are modified based on the determined
traffic data. Id.
Appellants argue that Sharma’s detection of a passerby (1) takes into
account a length of time the tracked person is in the access area, and (2) is
not based on the entering and exiting regions, as required by claims 22, 24,
and 26. App. Br. 24—26; see also Reply Br. 9. We agree. Sharma describes
detecting a passerby based on a change in velocity, not entering and exiting
regions. In addition, Sharma explains that the change in velocity is a
14
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
“temporal attribute” of the customer that measures a customer interaction
level. Put another way, Sharma uses a change in velocity to take into
account the time that the customer is in the access area when characterizing
the customer’s interaction level as a passerby.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner takes the position
that:
If the shopper [in Sharma] passes by a product or display[,] the
entering and exiting areas most likely would be different[,] and
Sharma has the capability to determine this. Regardless of
whether the shopper is categorized by velocity, Sharma discloses
capturing images of the shopper passing by a product or display
without stopping. Therefore, Sharma does teach and suggest this
limitation.
Ans. 34.
However, simply capturing images of a customer passing through a
shopping area fails to teach or suggest the claimed detecting, as recited in
claim 22 and similarly recited in claims 24 and 26. For example, a person
who enters and leaves an access area at the same region and, thus, does not
meet the requirements for the claimed “passerby,” as recited in claims 22,
24, and 26, nonetheless, would be detected by the Sharma system as a
passerby if the person’s velocity remains unchanged.
We agree with Appellants that Redman does not cure the deficiencies
of Sharma. App. Br. 26—27; see also Reply Br. 10-11. The Examiner takes
the position that Redman’s description in paragraph 56 of analyzing paths
taken by a plurality of customers to determine common traffic patterns
“implies that Redman may determine customers entering and leaving from
the same direction or from different directions.” Ans. 35. But determining
common traffic patterns for a plurality of customers does not disclose or
15
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
suggest detecting a passerby person of the tracked persons when the entering
region and the leaving region of each of the tracked persons are determined
to be different, as required by each of claims 22, 24, and 26. Moreover, it is
unclear how or why, and the Examiner does not adequately explain how or
why, one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Sharma’s detection of a
passerby — that is not based on entering and exit regions and takes into
account time a person is in an access area — with Redman’s disclosure of
determining traffic patterns for a plurality of persons including locations
where a disproportionate number of customers reverse direction to arrive at
the claimed detecting of a passerby based on entering and exiting regions
and not taking into account the time that the person is in the access area.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 22, 24, and 26 and dependent claims 18, 19, 29, 35, and 37 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent Claims 12, 15—17, 27, 28, 30—34
None of the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 12, 15—17, 27,
28, and 30—34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) remedy the deficiency in the
rejection of independent claims 22, 24, and 26. Therefore, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 12, 15—17, 27,
28, and 30-34.
16
Appeal 2017-002102
Application 14/165,989
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 15—19, 22, 24, and 26—37
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 15—19, 22, 24, 26—35, and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are 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
17