Ex Parte Stoker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

13029911 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/029,911 02/17/2011
14824 7590 06/01/2018
Moser Taboada/ SRI International
1030 Broad Street
Suite 203
Shrewsbury, NJ 07702
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Stoker
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.
SRI6055-2 1569
EXAMINER
NASR!, MARY AM A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2483
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
docketing@mtiplaw.com
llinardakis@mtiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID STOKER, CREGG COW AN, MOTILAL AGRA WAL,
JAN EDWARD VANDERLAAN, and JOHN BRIAN BURNS
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 28, and 32-36. Claims
2, 9, 14--27, 29-31, and 37--40 have been canceled. See App. Br. 19-23
(Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SRI International.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "long-range acquisition of
facial and ocular features." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, which is illustrative of the
claimed invention, reads as follows:
1. A system for acquiring an image of a facial feature of a
subject, the system comprising:
a source of spatially incoherent illumination comprising
multiple emitters;
a stationary diffuser for diffusing and expanding the
spatially incoherent illumination to produce diffused
illumination;
a steerable telescope positioned to receive the diffused
illumination from the diffuser and to collimate the diffused
illumination into a beam directed at the facial feature, wherein
the steerable telescope includes a low-resolution sensor
configured to create an image of the subject's face and a high
resolution sensor configured to acquire the image of the facial
feature, wherein the low-resolution sensor and the high-
resolution sensor are both exposed by the same light source and
share the same field of view;
a first computational imaging element configured to
minimize an effect of defocus in the image of the facial feature;
a second computational imaging element configured to
minimize an effect of motion blur in the image of the facial
feature; and
a gaze monitor for identifying a location of the facial
feature and for tracking a gaze angle of the subject in a
continuous manner including when the subject is looking in a
direction other than at the steerable telescope and during an
acquisition of the image, wherein the tracking is based on a
position of glint relative to a pupil of the subject.
2
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Zhai et al. US 2002/0126479 Al Sept. 12, 2002
Ji et al. US 2004/0174496 Al Sept. 9, 2004
Shchegrov US 2006/0280219 Al Dec. 14, 2006
Raskar et al. US 2008/0187305 Al Aug. 7, 2008
Friedman et al. US 2010/0290668 Al Nov. 18, 2010
Rejections2
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, and 32-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Friedman, Ji, and
Zhai. Final Act. 6-13.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Friedman, Ji, Zhai, and Shchegrov.
Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Friedman, Ji, Zhai, and Raskar. Final
Act. 14--15.
2 The Examiner finds the limitations "first computational imaging element,"
"second computational imaging element," and "gaze monitor," recited in
claim 1, "subject tracker," recited in claim 3, "range finder," recited in claim
5, and "three-dimensional trajectory generator," recited in claim 8, invoke 35
U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph. Final Act. 5--6. The Examiner "has not rejected
claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 [under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th paragraph], but has only
mentioned that the claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, 6th
paragraph." Ans. 15. Therefore, the issue is not properly before us and is
not addressed herein.
3
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Friedman and Ji. Final Act. 15-17.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants contend the combination of Friedman, Ji, and Zhai fails to
teach or suggest "a second computational imaging element configured to
minimize an effect of motion blur in the image of the facial feature," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-1 O; Reply Br. 3---6. According to Appellants,
Friedman teaches using a distance along a Z-axis of a range finder ("Z-
distance") to predict the anticipated movement of a subject and techniques
for moving a long focal length zoom lens to achieve a highest focus
measurement at a particular Z-distance. App. Br. 7-8 ( citing Friedman
,r,r 42--45). Appellants argue "predicting a future location of a subject and
moving a lens to provide a focal plane at that location and waiting for the
subject to move through focus," as taught by Friedman, "does not and
cannot minimize an effect of motion blur in the image," as required by claim
1. App. Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Friedman teaches using the Z-distance
measurement to control the zoom and focus of the imaging system with
respect to the subject's movement. Ans. 18 (citing Friedman, Figs. 1, 6; 42).
The Examiner finds Friedman also teaches utilizing the Z-distance for zoom-
focus processing and quality measures, including computing focus measure
scores to estimate the sharp details in the iris region of the subject. Ans. 18
( citing Friedman ,r 148). The Examiner further finds Friedman teaches
4
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
utilizing the computed focus measure scores to reject blurred iris images
and, therefore, Friedman teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Id.
In response, Appellants argue Friedman does not teach utilizing the Z-
distance to control the zoom and focus of the imaging system with respect to
the subject's movement; rather, Friedman teaches using the Z-distance to
determine an optimal focus for a subject at different positions. Reply Br. 5.
Appellants argue moving a long focal length of a zoom lens to correct for an
out of focus target subject, as taught by Friedman, does not teach or suggest
minimizing motion blur, as required by claim 1. Id.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Friedman teaches that the
Z-distance is utilized to improve the accuracy of estimates of the position of
the targeted subject as well as to determine the range of focus and zoom.
Friedman ,r 42. Friedman describes a zoom and focus control process
employed for non-stationary ( e.g., moving) subjects that includes predicting
where the subject will be in focus at some time Tin the future, moving the
lens to a position for capturing an image of the subject at the predicted
location in a time less than T, and waiting for the subject to move through
focus. Friedman ,r 45. We agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 5), that
Friedman is silent regarding the processing including techniques for
minimizing motion blur in a captured image. Regarding blurred images, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 18) that Friedman teaches utilizing the
computed focus measure scores to reject blurred iris images (Friedman
,r 148). However, the Examiner's findings fail to explain how rejecting a
blurred image based on a computed score, as taught by Friedman, teaches or
suggests an imaging element configured to minimize an effect of motion
blur in the image of the facial feature, as required by claim 1.
5
Appeal2017-011288
Application 13/029,911
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1;
claim 28, which recites similar limitations; and claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 32-
36, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1.
Claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 depend from claim 1. The Examiner does not
find that the teachings of the additional references cited in the rejection of
claims 6, 7, 12, and 13 cure the deficiencies noted above with respect to
claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims
6, 7, 12, and 13 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the
pending claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 28, and
32-36.
REVERSED
6