Ex Parte Kanaujia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2017

13843455 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 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.
13/843,455 03/15/2013 Atul Kanaujia OV-lll 9926
74712 7590 12/21
Muir Patent Law, PLLC
P.O. Box 1213
9913 Georgetown Pike, Suite 200
Great Falls, VA 22066
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEEN V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2017 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):
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
pto@muirpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ATUL KANAUJIA, NIELS HAERING, and
MUN WAI LEE
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, 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 1—32, 35—37, and 43—50. Claims 33, 34 and 38-42
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “model[ling] the shape of
a human object monitored by a video stream” in which “3D human models,
such as a coarse 3D human model and a detailed 3D human model may be
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
estimated by mapping individual body part components to a frame”
(Abstract).
Independent claims 1, 32, and 45, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of video analysis, comprising:
receiving plural video streams, each video steam
providing a series of video images of a monitored location;
detecting a human object within the video images;
determining a three dimensional (3D) hull
corresponding to the human object within the video
images;
determining initial pose hypotheses of the human
object within the video images, the initial pose hypotheses
comprising a plurality of pose predictions associated with
a particular instant in time, each of the plurality of pose
predictions associated with a corresponding first
probability value;
mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to
each of the pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses
to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human
models;
comparing each of the corresponding coarse 3D
human models to the 3D hull;
in response to the comparing of each of the
corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull,
modifying pose predictions of the initial pose hypotheses
to obtain refined pose hypotheses;
for each of the pose predictions of the refined pose
hypotheses, mapping at least one standard human model
2
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
to a coarse 3D human model associated with the pose
prediction to obtain an associated refined 3D human
model;
comparing each of the refined 3D human models to
at least one of the video images to select an optimum 3D
human model as representing the human object detected
within the video images; and
based on the selected optimum 3D human model,
automatically detecting at least one of an event
represented within at least one of the video images, a
characteristic of the human object and a second object
within at least one of the video images.
32. A method of video analysis, comprising:
receiving plural video streams, each video steam
providing a series of video images of a monitored location;
detecting a human object within the video images;
determining a coarse 3D human model representing
the human object; and
mapping at least one standard human model to the
coarse 3D human model on a human part by part basis to
obtain a refined 3D human model comprising mapping a
body part of the at least one standard human model to a
corresponding portion of the coarse 3D human model, the
mapping of the body part including individual and
separate adjustment of a size of the body part of the at least
one standard human model,
based on the mapping, automatically detecting at
least one of an event represented within at least one of the
video images, a characteristic of the human object and a
second object within at least one of the video images.
3
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
45. A method of video analysis, comprising:
receiving plural video streams, each video stream
providing a series of video images of a monitored location;
detecting a human object within the video images;
determining a pose of the human object within the
video images;
mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes to
the pose to obtain a coarse 3D human-accessory combined
model;
mapping at least one standard human model to the
coarse 3D human-accessory combined model associated
with the pose to obtain an associated refined 3D human-
accessory combined model; and
based on the mapping of the at least one standard
human model to the coarse 3D human-accessory
combined model, automatically detecting at least one of an
event represented within at least one of the video images,
a characteristic of the human object and a second object
within at least one of the video images,
wherein the coarse 3D human-accessory combined
model comprises a model of a human and a portable
container or portable device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
Monachino US 2005/0002561 A1 Jan. 6, 2005
4
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
Sundaresan US 2009/0232353 A1 Sept. 17, 2009
Black US 2010/0111370 A1 May 6, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—26, 32, 35—37, 43, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sundaresan in view of Black. Final Act.
4.
Claims 27—31 and 45—50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sundaresan, in view of Black and Monachino.
Final Act. 33.
ISSUES
The issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. the combination of Sundaresan and Black teaches or suggests the
limitation of
in response to the comparing of each of the corresponding
coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull, modifying pose
predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain refined pose
hypotheses,
as recited in claim 1;
2. the combination of Sundaresan and Black teaches or suggests the
limitation of
mapping at least one standard human model to the coarse 3D
human model on a human part by part basis to obtain a refined
3D human model comprising mapping a body part of the at
least one standard human model to a corresponding portion of
the coarse 3D human model, the mapping of the body part
5
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
including individual and separate adjustment of a size of the
body part of the at least one standard human model,
as recited in claim 32; and
3. the combination of Sundaresan, Black, and Monachino teaches or
suggests the limitation of “mapping a plurality of simple geometric
volumes to the pose to obtain a coarse 3D human-accessory combined
model,” as recited in claim 45.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue Examiner error because the Examiner’s Answer
“now appears to have changed the mapping of claim 1 to map the claimed
plurality of pose predictions to the different ‘segment matches’ discussed at
paragraph [0162] of Sundaresan” (Reply Br. 3—4), but under this mapping
“Sundaresan fails to teach ‘mapping a plurality of simple geometric volumes
to each of the pose predictions [segment matches] ’ as would be further
required by claim 1” (Reply Br. 5). Appellants further contend “the
Examiner’s Answer does not even attempt to explain how Sundaresan would
meet these additional requirements of claim 1 when mapping Sundaresan’s
segment matches to claim l’s pose predictions” (Reply Br. 5).
We are persuaded by Appellants. In the Answer, the Examiner finds
the claimed “determining initial pose hypotheses” is taught by Sundaresan
because Sundaresan “discloses segmented body parts are being connected to
generate a skeleton model” (Ans. 3, citing Sundaresan 1162), and that
“[w]hen different segments are matched to create a skeleton model, each
created skeleton model will have [a] corresponding probability of
6
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
registration” (Ans. 3, citing Sundaresan 1162, and equations 19 and 20).
The Examiner additionally finds Sundaresan “discloses that stature is
estimated from the initial skeleton model” (Ans. 3, citing Sandaresan
121—122). The results of the segmented body calculations are input to the
procedure of Figure 10 at block 100. See Sandaresan 1122.
In the Final Action, the Examiner finds the claimed “mapping a
plurality of simple geometric volumes to each of the nose predictions of the
initial hypotheses to obtain a plurality of corresponding coarse 3D human
models” is taught by Sundaresan in Figure 10, in which “a super-quadric
model is estimated in block 106 using the skeleton model” (Final Act. 5,
citing Sundaresan Fig. 10,1124; see also Figs. 4, 3F, 5A—C, 109-110,
emphasis added).
Under any acceptance of the Examiner’s findings, in the claimed
“determining initial pose hypotheses” step, “the initial pose hypotheses
comprising a plurality of pose predictions” are poses that are changed in
Sundaresan block 104, before being input to the super-quadric model in
block 106. See Sundaresan Fig. 10, 122—123. Also, under the
Examiner’s findings, the claimed “modifying pose predictions of the initial
hypotheses” occurs in Sundaresan block 108. But block 108 is not
“modifying pose predictions of the initial hypotheses” — block 108 is
modifying poses that are determined in block 104 that are not the initial pose
predictions. Neither Black nor Monachino are cited by the Examiner for
curing this deficiency.
Thus, we do not find the combination of Sundaresan and Black
teaches or suggests “in response to the comparing of each of the
corresponding coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull, modifying pose
7
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain refined pose hypotheses.”
We are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as claims 2—31 dependent on claim 1.1
Claim 32
Appellants argue Examiner error because “the Examiner now takes a
[] position that Sundaresan does in fact teach individual and separate
adjustment of a size of the body part of at least one standard human model,
highlighting paragraph [0175] of Sundaresan” (Reply Br. 7, emphasis in
original). Appellants contend that “Sundaresan is consistent with the
disclosure of the present application and refers 3D volumetric models as a
‘human body model’ but does not consider its skeleton model as a human
body model” (Reply Br. 9, quoting Sundaresan 1164).
We are not persuaded by Appellants. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that “[individual changes in model parameters [of the model and
pose parameters disclosed in Sundaresan 1175] will result in individual
changes in corresponding tapered super-quadrics being mapped” (Ans. 5).
The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that “Black is used to teach [a]
standard human model by matching a fitted body model to a database 208
that contain stored 3D body models using a body matching component as in
Paragraph [0066]” (Ans. 5) and further teaches a “body model [] segmented
into body parts” (Ans. 5, citing Black || 205—206).
1 Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
Sundaresan’s model used as a “starting point” to estimate the quadric model
has fitting errors equivalent to association with a corresponding first
probability values.
8
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
Appellants attack Sundaresan individually and do not persuade us the
combined teachings of Sundaresan and Black fail to teach or suggest the
claim limitation, under the Examiner’s finding in which Sundaresan’s
method of processing data wherein changes in model parameters results in
changes in tapered super-quadrics, is combined with the standard and
segmented body models of Black. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 32, and sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 35 and
36 for similar reasons (see Reply Br. 10—11).
Claim 45
Appellants argue Examiner error because Monachino “teaches
detecting and dividing two dimensional blocks of grayscale values” using
“the size, location and aspect ratio of such block,” but “[tjhese identified
characteristics of size, location and aspect ratio do not constitute any model
of anything in the analyzed image of Monachino” (Reply Br. 12, citing
Monachino 141). Appellants further contend Monachino fails to teach a
“combined human-accessory model” and fails to suggest modification of
Sundaresan and Black to achieve the claimed invention (Reply Br. 12)
because Monachino is “directed to dividing a portion of the image
representing an object of interest to save it as a separate file” (Reply Br. 12).
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that Monachino teaches “identifying candidate objects including carried
9
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
objects such as bags or suitcases, that the candidate objects are identified by
one or more pattern recognition systems which can map a pattern of
accessory object volume into the object to recognize the object” (Ans. 6,
citing Monachino 18—19, which describe examining frames to identify
objects such as bags or suitcases). The Examiner also finds, and we agree,
that the incorporation of Monachino’s teachings into the teachings of
Sundaresan and Black would “incorporate mapping an accessory simple
geometric volume [Monachino] to a pose of the corresponding pose
prediction [Sundaresan and Black] to have a 3D human with accessory
model, automatically detecting a characteristic of a second object” with
motivation supplied by Monachino (Final Act. 42, citing Monachino 17; see
also Ans. 6—7, citing Monachino ^fl[ 24—25).
Appellants’ arguments focus on the image processing teachings of
Monachino and do not challenge the Examiner’s findings that Monachino
teaches identifying carried objects such as bags or suitcases, along with
identifying body areas, and the desirability of incorporating those teachings
into the combined teachings of Sundaresan and Black for a combined
human-accessory model. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 45.
Appellants make additional arguments regarding dependent claims
46-48 (see Reply Br. 12—13) that purport to identify assertions by the
Examiner regarding individual references, and these arguments are similarly
unpersuasive as the arguments do not consider the combination of the
references. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 46—
48, and claims 49-50 not separately argued (see App. Br. 16—22).
10
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
CONCLUSION
The Examiner:
1. erred in finding the combination of Sundaresan and Black teaches or
suggests the limitation of
in response to the comparing of each of the corresponding
coarse 3D human models to the 3D hull, modifying pose
predictions of the initial pose hypotheses to obtain refined pose
hypotheses,
as recited in claim 1;
2. did not err in finding the combination of Sundaresan and Black teaches or
suggests the limitation of
mapping at least one standard human model to the coarse 3D
human model on a human part by part basis to obtain a refined
3D human model comprising mapping a body part of the at
least one standard human model to a corresponding portion of
the coarse 3D human model, the mapping of the body part
including individual and separate adjustment of a size of the
body part of the at least one standard human model,
as recited in claim 32; and
3. did not err in finding the combination of Sundaresan, Black, and
Monachino teaches or suggests the limitation of “mapping a plurality of
simple geometric volumes to the pose to obtain a coarse 3D human-
accessory combined model,” as recited in claim 45.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—31 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 32, 35—37, and 43—50 is
affirmed.
11
Appeal 2017-007880
Application 13/843,455
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