Ex Parte Tu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2016

13308376 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/308,376 11130/2011
62204 7590 09/08/2016
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (LICENSING)
ATTN: Brandon, 59W - 105U
1 RIVER ROAD
SCHENECTADY, NY 12345
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.
250984-1 (GELC:0071) 4382
EXAMINER
SYROWIK, MATHEW RICHARD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3622
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2016 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):
vivian.brandon@ge.com
rlt@zpspatents.com
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER HENRY TU, MARK LEWIS GRABB, XIAOMING LIU,
TING YU, YI YAO, DASHAN GAO, and MING-CHING CHANG
Appeal2014-006163 1
Application 13/308,3762
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES A. WORTH, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, 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 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134
and 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our decision refers to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed
Jan. 13, 2014) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 28, 2014), and the
Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Aug. 13, 2013) and
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Feb. 27, 2014).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is General Electric
Company (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal2014-006163
Application 13/308,376
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "to measuring or increasing the
effectiveness of interactive advertising" (Spec. i-f 1 ).
Claims 1, 8, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system to facilitate interactive advertising, the
system comprising:
a processor; and
a memory including application instructions for
execution by the processor, the application instructions
including:
a visual analytics engine to analyze visual
information including human activity;
a content engine separate from the visual
analytics engine to provide advertising content to one or more
potential customers; and
an interface module to enable information
generated from analysis of the human activity by the visual
analytics engine to be transferred to the content engine in
accordance with a specification in which the information
generated is characterized with a hierarchical, object-oriented
data structure.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and the Appellants appeal, the following
rejection:
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a), (e) as
being anticipated by Sharma (U.S. Patent No. 7,921,036 Bl,
iss. Apr. 5, 2011 ).
2
Appeal2014-006163
Application 13/308,376
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20
Appellants argue the patentability of claims 1-20 together. We select
independent claim 1 as representative, such that claims 2-20 stand or fall
with independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Sharma fails to
disclose analysis of a hierarchical object-oriented data structure, as recited in
independent claim 1, i.e., "an interface module to enable information
generated from analysis of the human activity by the visual analytics engine
to be transferred to the content engine in accordance with a specification in
which the information generated is characterized with a hierarchical, object-
oriented data structure" (Appeal Br. 5-9; see also Reply Br. 2--4). In
particular, Appellants argue that the data on features extracted by Sharma-
gender, age range, gaze characteristics, height, hair color, skin color,
clothing, and time spent in front of the display-are not arranged in a
hierarchical or tiered structure (Appeal Br. 8 (citing Sharma, col. 8, 11. 10-
13) ). However, the Examiner finds that the features are arranged in a
hierarchical fashion with respect to the persons being observed (i.e.,
regardless of whether certain features are structured in a hierarchical
relationship to other features) (see Ans. 5 (citing Sharma, col. 14, 11. 55-65,
and col. 17, 11. 30--41)). We agree. See also Fig. 2 (cited in Ans. 6).
The Examiner further relies on a definition of "hierarchy" for software
and data management from The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard
Terms, Seventh Edition, as: "A structure in which components are ranked
into levels of subordination; each component has zero, one, or more
subordinates; and no component has more than one subordinate component"
3
Appeal2014-006163
Application 13/308,376
(Ans. 4). We determine that this definition is reasonable and consistent with
the Specification, which does not provide a definition for "hierarchical." In
any event, this definition is consistent with Appellants' argued meaning of
"tiered," as above. To the extent that Appellants may be arguing for more
than two tiers for a hierarchical structure (see Appeal Br. 7-8), we find that
claim 1 does not require any such feature. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that the features for the observed people described in Sharma meet
the limitation "characterized with a hierarchical, object-oriented data
structure" (see Ans. 3, 8).
Appellants also argue that Sharma does not disclose "analyz[ing]," as
recited in independent claim 1 because, according to Appellants, Sharma
does not describe how or whether the personal features are analyzed (Appeal
Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2--4). Appellants assert that Sharma merely applies
business rules to the data (see Appeal Br. 8). However, the Examiner finds
that Sharma discloses analysis of the hierarchical structure when Sharma
discloses characterizing the audience with updates based on changes and
other feedback (Ans. 8 (citing Sharma, col. 7, 11. 30--40, col. 14, 11. 43--44)).
Indeed, Sharma (col. 7, col. 30--40) describes analyzing facial images to
estimate an emotional state. We find that this meets the "analyzing" element
of the limitation.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 102 of
claims 1-2 0.
4
Appeal2014-006163
Application 13/308,376
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
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
5