Ex Parte Tu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

13888941 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/888,941 05/07/2013
6147 7590 09/07/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter Henry Tu
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.
259236-2 5902
EXAMINER
SATTI,HUMAMM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/07/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER HENRY TU, TING YU,
DASHAN GAO, and YI YAO
Appeal2018-000476
Application 13/888,941
Technology Center 2400
Before: JOHN A. EVANS, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and 20-23, all the
pending claims. See Claims App'x; Final Act Summary.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 Appellants state that General Electric Company is the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 17, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief ( filed October 16, 2017, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer ( mailed
September 1, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed November 17, 2016,
Appeal 2018-0004 7 6
Application 13/888,941
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a method and system for making a video-loop of
a person in a commercial site. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Illustrative claim 1 is
reproduced below:
1. A method for generating an activity summary of a person
in a commercial site, the method comprising:
receiving one or more videos from one or more image
capture devices;
determining metadata associated with the person from the
one or more videos, the metadata including location data of the
person and an appearance descriptor that represents a spatial
distribution of color corresponding to the person;
generating a video-loop of the person from the one or
more videos by combining sets of images from the one or more
videos based on a similarity of the metadata associated with the
person, wherein the video-loop includes images of an entire
trip, including all activities, of the person in the commercial
site;
generating at least one action clip from the video-loop,
wherein the at least one action clip includes a suspicious action
performed by the person in the commercial site; and
generating the activity summary of the person including
the video-loop and the at least one action clip.
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed May 7, 2013, "Spec.") for their
respective details.
2
Appeal 2018-0004 7 6
Application 13/888,941
Venetianer
Miller
Kyyko
Bobbitt
Song
Yoshio
Hackett
Park
References and Rejections
US 2008/0100704 Al
US 2008/0204569 Al
US 2009/0141947 Al
US 2010/0111404 Al
US 2010/0202693 Al
US 2011/0320463 Al
US 2012/0027371 Al
US 2012/0038766 Al
The claims stand rejected as follows:
May 1, 2008
Aug. 28, 2008
June 4, 2009
May 6, 2010
Aug. 12, 2010
Dec. 29, 2011
Feb.2,2012
Feb. 16,2012
1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, and 15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Venetianer and Bobbitt. Final
Act. 3-5.
2. Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Venetianer and Y oshio. Final Act. 5---6.
3. Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Zhu, Hackett, and Bobbitt. Final Act. 6-9.
4. Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu, Hackett, and Miller. Final Act. 9-10.
5. Claim 14 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu, Hackett, and Venetianer. Final Act. 10-11.
6. Claims 15, 17, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Park, Venetianer, and Bobbitt.
Final Act. 11-13.
7. Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Venetianer, and Yoshio. Final Act. 13-14.
3
Appeal 2018-0004 7 6
Application 13/888,941
8. Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Park, Venetianer, and Hackett. Final Act. 14--15.
9. Claim 21 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Venetianer and Kyyko. Final Act. 15-16.
10. Claim 23 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Venetianer, Kyyko, and Song. Final Act. 16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1-18 and 20 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants'
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11.
CLAIMS 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, AND 20-23: OBVIOUSNESS OVER VENETIANERAND
BOBBITT.
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15, the Examiner finds
V enetianer teaches generating a video-loop by combining sets of images
from one or more videos. Final Act. 3 (citing Venetianer ,r,r 153, 159-162).
Appellants contend the cited disclosure of Venetianer fails to teach
generating a video-loop. App. Br. 6.
The Answer shifts the Examiner's evidentiary grounds to find "[a]n
operator may query the system using video primitives and event
discriminators to generate video information, i.e. video loop, from different
sources." Ans. 17.
3 Claim 22 is not recited in the header of the rejection, but is discussed in the
body. We find this to be harmless error.
4
Appeal 2018-0004 7 6
Application 13/888,941
Appellants reply the Answer cites additional paragraphs of
Venetianer, but fails to provide any explanation as to how the new
disclosures teach the disputed limitation.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's Answer no longer finds
a teaching of a video-loop in the originally cited passages of Venetianer.
See Ans. 17. We further agree with Appellants that none of the disclosures
of either Figure 15 or paragraph 106 of Venetianer ( newly cited in the
Answer) relate to a video-loop. The Examiner does not cite any of the
secondary art, either alone or in combination with Venetianer, to teach a
video-loop. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 commensurately recite
"generating a video-loop," which, as discussed is not taught by the cited art.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1-5,
7-11, 13-18, and 20-23.
CLAIMS 9-11, 13, AND 14: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ZHU AND VARIOUSLY
HACKETT, BOBBITT, MILLER, AND VENETIANER.
Appellants contend, inter alia, the cited art fails to teach a video-loop.
App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Zhu discloses a video-loop. Ans. 20-21
( citing Zhu, ,r 119).
We fail to find disclosure of a video-loop in the cited portion of Zhu:
FIGS. 1 lA & 1 lB present another example. In this example, as
shown in FIG. 1 lA, the inference engine switches from a first
camera to a second camera when person 1 [] leaves the field of
view of camera 1 [] and enters the filed of view of camera 2 [].
That is, a display follows a person as he or she moves from
camera 1 to camera 2. In this example, it is assumed that two
cameras are placed side by side with camera 1 on the left and
camera 2 on the right, and they do not have overlap in their
field of view. As shown in FIG. 1 lB, camera [1] and camera
[2] are selected by the user.
5
Appeal 2018-0004 7 6
Application 13/888,941
Zhu, ,r 119. We, therefore, decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 9-11,
13, and 14.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-18, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
6