13330988 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

Ex Parte Hutchings

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2016

13330988 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/330,988 12/20/2011 98031 7590 08/31/2016 Artegis Law Group, LLP - Harman 7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104 Houston, TX 77095 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jeffrey L. Hutchings 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. HRMN/0053US (Plll97US) CONFIRMATION NO. 2288 EXAMINER ALLISON, ANDRAE S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2016 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): kcruz@artegislaw.com mmccauley@artegislaw.com algdocketing@artegislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JEFFREY L. HUTCHINGS Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 Technology Center 2600 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., IRVINE. BRANCH, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-23. Claims 5 and 9 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 CLAHvfED SUBJECT ~vfATTER The claims are directed to communicating relationship data associated with image characteristics in an image processing system. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of performing analytic processing, the method compnsmg: determining, with at least one processor of a first processing system, an image characteristic value corresponding to an image characteristic, the image characteristic being associated with image data; determining, with the at least one processor, an indicator representing whether the image characteristic value satisfies a predetermined target associated with the image characteristic, the predetermined target indicating one or more values of the image characteristic that are desired to analytically process the image data using a second processing system; and transmitting, with the at least one processor, the image data and the indicator to the second processing system that is configured to perform high-level analytic image processing on the image data based on the indicator. REJECTIONS Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 4--5. Claims 1--4, 6, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) as anticipated by Bertozzi (M. Bertozzi et al., Low-level Pedestrian Detection by means of Visible and Far Infra-red Tetra-vision, Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, Tokyo, Japan June 2006). Final Act. 6-8. 2 Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 Claims 5, 7, 10-12, and 14--23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bertozzi and Heikkila (Janne Heikkila and Olli Silven, A Real-Time System for Monitoring of Cyclists and Pedestrians, IMAGE AND VISION COMPUTING 22(2004) pp. 563-570). Final Act. 8-13. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable Bertozzi, Heikkila, and Harman (US 2008/0036597 Al; Feb. 14, 2008). Final Act. 14. ANALYSIS Appellant does not present arguments with respect to the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 rejection of claims 22 and 23. See, generally, App. Br. 7- 11.1 Accordingly, we summarily sustain the rejection. Final Act. 4--5. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Bertozzi because Bertozzi does not describe a "second processing system that is configured to perform high-level analytic image processing on ... image data based on" an "indicator of whether [an] image characteristic value satisfies [a] predetermined target." App. Br. 8. The Examiner finds that Bertozzi describes a pedestrian detection system that includes two image processing levels: low-level processing that detects "features;" and high level processing that detects obstacles on the detected features. Ans. 2 (citing Bertozzi p. 232). Appellant argues that the Examiner's findings in the Examiner's Answer revises the basis for the rejection, thereby amounting to a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 2. Appellant then argues that the Examiner's 1 Appellant's Appeal Brief pages are not individually numbered. Here, we refer to the page numbers using the Table of Contents (p. 2) as a guide. 3 Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 revised basis is, nevertheless, erroneous because Bertozzi does not disclose "transmitting ... the image data and the indicator to the second processing system that is configured to perform high-level analytic image processing on the image data based on the indicator." Id. 4--5. This argument is premised on the Examiner's failure to "explain how the road slope detection performed at step 1 [of Bertozzi] yields any kind of indicator representing whether it is desired to process the image data to perform obstacle detection at step 2 of the algorithm." Id. 4. Appellant asserts that claim 1 requires conditional dependency between the recited steps, which is lacking in steps 1 and 2 of Bertozzi. Id. 4--5. Appellant also argues that claim 1 requires a first processor associated with the first processing system to transmit image data and the indicator to a distinct second processing system, which Bertozzi does not disclose. Id. 5 We are unpersuaded of error. We are not persuaded that claim 1 requires the processing at Bertozzi's step 2 to be performed conditionally. The "determining" limitations, which Appellant correlates to Bertozzi's "step 1," do not recite determining whether to perform the recited transmitting. The two determining limitations determine an image characteristic value and an indicator of whether the image characteristic value satisfies a predetermined target. Neither of these determining steps recite "determining" whether a transmitting step (step 2) is performed. Further, we are not persuaded that Bertozzi fails to disclose the recited indicator. Bertozzi discloses that, in step 1, a "correlation map" encodes "correlation values" into an image, the values relating to pixel brightness, wherein "[t]he brighter the pixel the higher the match quality." Bertozzi 4 Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 section II, subsection A, step 1. \Ve see no persuasive argument why the recited indicator fails to read on Bertozzi's correlation map. We also are unpersuaded of error based on Appellant's argument that Bertozzi does not disclose transmitting by a first processor to a second processing system. Reply Br. 5. The argument is premised on the incorrect assumption that claim 1 precludes the first processor from being the processor for both the first and second processing systems. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 11 and 17, which Appellant argues on the same basis as claim 1 (Reply Br. 6), adding only that Heikkila does not cure the deficiencies of Bertozzi (App. Br. 10- 11 ). Except for claim 4, which we address below, Appellant does not separately argue the remaining claims. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's decision to reject claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 12-16, and 18-23. Appellant newly argues claim 4 in the Reply Brief, justifying the new argument based on the Examiner's revised basis for rejecting claim 1. Reply Br. 6-7. We need not reach the merits of this argument because it is newly presented in Appellant's Reply Brief. See Carbino v. West, 168 F.3d 32, 34--35 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Appellant waived the right to have any alleged new ground designated as such by not filing a petition within the allotted 2 months. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.40. Nevertheless, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive of error because it does not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding (Final Act. 7) that claim 4' s "determining ... a location of the image characteristic value outside of the predetermined target" reads on Bertozzi' s bounding boxes (Fig. 3) that depict where pedestrians are located. The Examiner refers 5 Appeal2015-003246 Application 13/330,988 specifically to the small bounding boxes located away from the bounding boxes containing the pedestrians. Final Act. 7. DECISION In view of the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-8, and 10-23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6