Ex Parte Hofman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 29, 201613448751 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 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. 13/448,751 04/17/2012 Henk Hofman 076263.0371 8080 5073 7590 01/03/2017 RAKFR ROTTST T P EXAMINER 2001 ROSS AVENUE SUH, JOSEPH JINWOO SUITE 600 DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/03/2017 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): ptomaill @bakerbotts.com ptomai!2 @ bakerbotts .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HENK HOFMAN, COR DE RUIJTER, MENNO KOEKOEK, and PETER WILLEM VAN DER SLUIS Appeal 2016-002187 Application 13/448,751 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants have appealed to the Board from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—30. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2016-002187 Application 13/448,751 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1—4, 7—10, 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis (US 5,412,420, published May 2, 1995) and Breed et al. (US 2001/0015547 Al, published Aug. 23, 2001). Final Act. 4. Claims 5, 6, 11, 20, 21, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Breed, and Steinmetz et al. (US 2011/0285502 Al, published Nov. 24, 2011). Final Act. 11. Claims 14, 15, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Breed, and Van Den Berg (US 2010/0186675 Al, published July 29, 2010). Final Act. 13. Claims 16—19 and 26—29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ellis, Breed, andNichani (US 6,819,779 Bl, published Nov. 16,2004). Final Act. 14. THE CLAIMED INVENTION According to the application, the present invention relates generally “to dairy farming,” and more particularly “to a vision system for a robotic attacher.” Spec. 1. Independent claims 1 and 12 are directed to systems; and independent claims 7 and 22 are directed to methods. App. Br. 26—28, 30. Claim 1 recites: 1. A system, comprising: a first camera operable to capture an image of a rear of a dairy livestock, the image comprising a plurality of pixels having depth values; 2 Appeal 2016-002187 Application 13/448,751 a second camera, the second camera having a higher resolution than the first camera; and a processor communicatively coupled to the first camera and the second camera, the processor operable to: determine edges of the rear of the dairy livestock based at least in part upon the depth values of the plurality of pixels; determine a center coordinate of an udder of the dairy livestock based at least in part upon the determined edges of the rear of the dairy livestock; and determine a position of a teat of the dairy livestock based at least in part upon the center coordinate and visual data captured by the second camera. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejections in the Final Action, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Examiner’s Answer. On the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in finding the combination of Ellis and Breed teaches or suggests to “determine a position of a teat of the dairy livestock based at least in part upon the center coordinate and visual data captured by the second camera,” as recited in claim 1. Appellants argue that Ellis does not teach a “center coordinate of an udder” and also fails to teach determining a position of a teat based upon the center coordinate the udder and visual data; and that Breed processes sound waves rather than images or the claimed visual data. See App. Br. 21—22, 20—21. The Examiner responds that, while Ellis does not teach determining a position of a teat of dairy livestock based upon the center coordinate and visual data, Breed teaches providing focused location of a part of the body based on a center coordinate and camera visual data. See Ans. 4, 22. 3 Appeal 2016-002187 Application 13/448,751 Ellis discloses evaluating the rear view of a cow, and then a second laser camera placed behind the cow that would split the rear view of the cow into multiple areas, including an area for the mammary system. Ellis col. 16, 11. 21—27. In other words, Ellis teaches a dual camera system for determining the rear of a cow, as well as determining coordinate information of the cow’s udders. Breed discloses, as background information, that triangulation can employ laser optical systems which currently have high costs and safety issues, and provides a different preferred method of triangulation of a point on a head using ultrasonic transducers. Breed H 21, 111—112. In other words, Breed teaches using sound waves in triangulation as a solution for problems arising from using laser optical systems. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Breed merely provides a method of triangulation of a point on the body utilizing ultrasonic transducers, while Ellis teaches utilizing a camera system to map out the rear of a cow. As such, the combination of Ellis and Breed does not teach or suggest to “determine a position of a teat of the dairy livestock based at least in part upon the center coordinate and visual data captured by the second camera,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 7, 12, and 22 are commensurate in scope with independent claim 1, and claims 2—6, 8—11, 13—21, and 23—30 are dependent on the independent claims. We do not sustain the rejections of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to claim 1. 4 Appeal 2016-002187 Application 13/448,751 DECISION The rejections of claims 1—30 are reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation