Ex Parte PATHANGAY et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2016

12769654 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121769,654 04/29/2010
22879 7590 02/04/2016
HP Inc,
3390 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528-9544
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vinod PATHANGAY
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
82260008 8118
EXAMINER
ELL, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2172
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/04/2016 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):
ipa.mail@hp.com
barbl@hp.com
yvonne.bailey@hp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINOD PATHANGAY and ANBUMANI SUBRAMANIAN
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection
of claims 1-3 and 5-15, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 4 is cancelled. (App. Br. (Claims App'x) 29.)
We affirm-in-part.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention relates to "a point, select and transfer
hand gesture based user interface." (Abstract.) Claims 1 and 12, which are
illustrative, read as follows:
1. A computer implemented method for a point, select
and transfer hand gesture based user interface,
compns1ng:
capturing a depth image of a hand gesture using an
in-front camera on a frame by frame basis within a
predefined interaction volume and wherein the in-front
camera is disposed around a display device and wherein
the display device is designed to display a plurality of
select options;
finding a nearest point of the hand gesture to a
display screen of the display device using a nearest depth
value in the captured depth image for each frame;
performing an image-to-screen mapping of the
captured depth in1age and the found nearest point to the
display screen upon validating the found nearest point as
associated with the hand for each frame; and
pointing and selecting one of the plurality of
displayed select options on the display screen of the
display device when the nearest depth value is within a
number of predetermined threshold ranges, and based on
the outcome of the image-to-screen mapping,
in which finding the nearest point of the hand
gesture to the display screen of the display device using
the nearest depth value in the captured depth image for
each frame comprises finding a single pixel associated
with the nearest depth value in the captured depth image
for each frame.
12. A non-transitory computer-readable storage
medium for a point, select and transfer hand gesture based
2
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
user interface having instructions that, when executed by
a computing device, cause the computing device to
perform a method comprising:
capturing a depth image of a hand gesture using an
in-front camera on a frame by frame basis within a
predefined interaction volume and wherein the in-front
camera is disposed around a display device and wherein
the display device is designed to display a plurality of
select options;
finding a nearest point of the hand gesture to a
display screen of the display device using a nearest depth
value in the captured depth image for each frame;
performing an image-to-screen mapping of the
captured depth image and the found nearest point to the
display screen upon validating the found nearest point as
associated with the hand for each frame; and
pointing and selecting one of the plurality of
displayed select options on the display screen of the
display device when the nearest depth value is within one
or more predetermined threshold values or ranges, and
based on the outcome of the image-to-screen mapping,
in which performing the image-to-screen mapping
of the captured depth image and the found nearest point to
the display screen upon validating the found nearest point
as associated with the hand for each frame comprises
smoothening an estimated pointing location on the display
screen by temporal averaging of the estimated pointing
location upon performing the image-to-screen mapping of
the captured depth image and the found nearest point to
the display screen.
3
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
The Re} ections2
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Vassigh et al. (US 2011/0193939 Al; publ. Aug.
11, 2011; filed Feb., 2010; "Vassigh") and Davidson et al. (US
2007 /0279412 Al; publ. Dec. 6, 2007; Davidson). (See Final Act. 4--14.)
Claims 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vassigh, Davidson, and Poon et al. (US
2011/0175822 Al; publ. July 21, 2011; filed Jan. 21, 2010; "Poon"). (See
Final Act. 14--16.)
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs ("App.
Br." filed June 27, 2013; "Reply Br." filed Nov. 15, 2013) and the
Specification ("Spec." filed Apr. 29, 2010) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action ("Final Act." mailed Feb. 28, 2013) and Answer
("Ans." mailed Sept. 18, 2013) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in
the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
2 A rejection of claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph (see Final Act. 2-3) is withdrawn, and is, therefore, not before us.
(Ans. 3.) Appellants' contention to the contrary notwithstanding (see Reply
Br. 4 and 10), the Examiner's withdrawal of the§ 112 rejection fully
addresses Appellants' traversal of the§ 112 rejection (see App. Br. 4--16;
Reply Br. 4--7).
4
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
ISSUES
The issues presented by Appellants' contentions are as follows:
Does the combination of Vassigh and Davidson teach or suggest
"finding the nearest point of the hand gesture to the display screen of
the display device using the nearest depth value in the captured depth
image for each frame comprises finding a single pixel associated
with the nearest depth value in the captured depth image for each
frame" (hereinafter the "single pixel limitation"), as recited in claim 1 ?3
Does the combination of Vassigh and Davidson teach or suggest
"smoothening an estimated pointing location on the display screen by
temporal averaging of the estimated pointing location upon performing the
image-to-screen mapping of the captured depth image and the found nearest
point to the display screen" (hereinafter the "smoothening limitation"), as
recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in claim 14?
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 - Single Pixel Limitation
The Examiner relies on Davidson to teach the single pixel limitation
(Final Act. 6 (citing Davidson i-fi-142 and 44); see also Ans. 3-5.) Appellants
contend Davidson does not teach or suggest the single pixel limitation
"because the closest 2D pixel location in a depth map as taught in
[Davidson] ... is merely a 2D pixel closest to a camera and is not indicative
3 Appellants' arguments regarding claim 1 present additional issues.
Because the identified issue is dispositive of claim 1, we do not reach the
additional issues.
5
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
of an actual closest pixel indicating the closest point of an individual (e.g.,
the individual's hand)." (App. Br. 19.)
Although we do not find Appellants' reasoning to be entirely clear, we
do agree with Appellants' basic premise: that the "closest 2D pixel
location" taught by Davidson (i-f 44) "is not indicative of an actual closest
pixel indicating the closest point of an individual (e.g., the individual's
hand)" or any other object to a display screen (App. Br. 19). Rather,
Davidson teaches for a plurality of pixel locations, comparing a computed
distance for each pixel location with a distance recorded at a "closest 2D
pixel location" in a depth map and using that comparison to designate the
two pixel locations as either "corresponding" or "occluded." (Davidson
i1 44.) Thus, Davidson teaches identifying multiple pixel locations in a depth
map that are "closest" to computed pixel locations, rather than a single pixel
that is closest to a display screen or camera.
Therefore, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the rejection of
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of claim 1 over
Vassigh and Davidson, and claims 2, 3, and 5-11, which depend from claim
1, over various combinations of Vassigh, Davidson, and Poon.
Claims 12 and 14 - Smoothening Limitation
The Examiner relies on V assigh to teach the smoothening limitation.
(Final Act. 13 (citing Vassigh i-f 119); see also Ans. 6.) Appellants contend
as follows:
The "data structure" of Vassigh merely defines measurement
values of a number of body parts. The data structure of Vassigh
may be formed via scan results averaged from multiple depth
images which are provide at different points in time. In other
words, Vassigh never uses an averaging processes or temporal
6
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
averaging to determine an estimated pointing location on a
display screen as recited in claim 12.
(App. Br. 21-22 (discussing Vassigh i-f 119); see also Reply Br. 11-14
(additionally citing Vassigh i-f 120).)
We agree with the Examiner. As pointed out by the Examiner, "the
data structure formed by the temporal averaging [taught by Vassigh] is what
is used in the depth image to perform gestures. This data structure will then
translate to the display screen and smoothen an estimated pointing location
on the display screen." (Ans. 6.) In explaining the use of the model of the
human target represented by the data structure (Vassigh i-fi-1 119-20), Vassigh
teaches that "[a]s the user moves in the physical space, information from the
depth camera system is used to adjust the skeletal model such that the
skeletal model represents a person" (id. i-f 122). Vassigh further explains as
follows:
This data can include coordinates . . . where the coordinates
represent a position of the user's hand at a point in time; such as
for a camera frame. A reference position of the hand such as
the fingertips can be used to represent the hand's position.
Individual fingers might also be identified and have respective
reference positions if there is sufficient resolution.
(Id. i-f 124.) Vassigh then describes details of using hand position in the
model provided by the data structure to "provide an input to an application"
(id. ,-r 125).
Therefore, we find no error in the Examiner's finding that Vassigh' s
teaching of a data structure from which a model of a human target is
generated, and in which scan results from multiple depth images provided at
different points in time ("temporal") are averaged (Vassigh i-f 119), teaches
or suggests the smoothening limitation.
7
Appeal2014-001499
Application 12/769,654
Appellants have not demonstrated error in the rejection of claim 12.
Accordingly we sustain the rejections over various combinations of Vassigh,
Davidson, and Poon of claim 12, claim 14, which was argued on
substantially the same bases as claim 12 (compare App. Br. 23-25 with App.
Br. 20-22), and claims 13 and 15, which depend from claims 12 and 14,
respectively, and were not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br.
27).4
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 12-15 is affirmed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-3 and 5-11 is
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
4 The patentability of claim 6 was argued on substantially the same bases as
claims 12 and 14. (Compare App. Br. 25-27 with App. Br. 20-25.)
Similarly, claim 11 was rejected together with claims 13 and 15. (See Final
Act. 14--16.) However, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 6 and 11
for the reasons set forth for claim 1, from which claims 6 and 11 depend.
8