Ex Parte Wu et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 22, 201914303809 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/303,809 06/13/2014 144578 7590 04/24/2019 FAY SHARPE LLP / CONDUENT 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WenchengWu 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. 20140433USNP-CNDT3 l 63US01 1471 EXAMINER LUDWIG, PETER L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3687 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/24/2019 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@faysharpe.com Conduent.PatentDocketing@conduent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WENCHENG WU, STEVEN R. MOORE, THOMAS F. WADE, DENNIS L. VENABLE, ADRIEN P. COTE, and PETER PAUL Appeal2018-002087 Application 14/303,809 Technology Center 3600 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-002087 Application 14/303,809 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 23, which are the only claims currently pending. Claims 11- 22 and 24 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to a store shelf-imaging system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A store profile generation system comprising: a mobile base; an image capture assembly mounted on the mobile base, the assembly comprising image capture devices which acquire images of associated product display units in a product facility, product labels being associated with the product display units which include product-related data, a first of the image capture devices capturing low resolution photographic images of the product display units and a second of the image capture devices capturing high resolution photographic images of the product display units at a higher resolution than the first image capture device, the low and high resolution images including pixels; and a control unit comprising memory which stores instructions and a processor which executes the instructions, the control unit instructions including instructions which process the images captured by the image capture devices at a sequence of locations of the mobile base in the product facility, using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels, thereafter extracts the product-related data from the acquired high resolution photographic images of the product display units, in the candidate locations, captured by the second image capture device, and constructs a store profile indicating locations of the product labels throughout the product facility based on the extracted product-related data, a spatial characterization of the image capture assembly, and information on locations of the mobile base in the sequence of locations at a 2 Appeal2018-002087 Application 14/303,809 time that the low resolution or high resolution images were acquired. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Prudhomme et al. US 2004/0233278 Al Silverstein et al. US 2006/0072176 Al Zimmerman US 2008/0077511 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Nov. 25, 2004 Apr. 6, 2006 Mar. 27, 2008 Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman and Prudhomme. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmerman, Prudhomme, and Silverstein. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Appellants make various arguments, including that Zimmerman does not teach "the control unit using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-15. The Examiner "finds this limitation to be 'intended use' as this is a 'system' claim and how the control unit uses the acquired images is design choice/intended use." Final Act. 3; Ans. 7. The Examiner also finds Zimmerman teaches this element because "the RFID reader is used to identify items such that the items may or may not have barcodes on them that can be captured by high resolution imaging device and where these images are used to determine if 3 Appeal2018-002087 Application 14/303,809 items are out-of-place (e.g. not above their shelf bar code.)" Id. We address each of these findings in tum. First, the Examiner erred by refusing to give "patentable weight" to the claimed candidate locations as a design choice. Final Act. 8 ("What the designer/engineer decides to do with the image(s) is a matter of design choice and is not granted patentable weight."); Ans. 7. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has provided no persuasive evidence that "using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels" is an obvious matter of design choice or intended use. Other than a conclusory statement, the Examiner provides no analysis, evidence, or reasoning to support this conclusion. The Examiner also points to paragraph 50 of Zimmerman as teaching "the control unit using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 7. The Examiner concludes that "[ w ]hen the control unit is configured to analyze image( s) and determine where a barcode is on an item from the image, the examiner finds that the control unit is configured to 'identify candidate locations of the product labels' as the barcode is a product label." Id. "Further in [0050] the RFID reader is configured to read RFID tags on pallets and containers, which is another 'product label."' Id. The cited paragraph 50 of Zimmerman does not teach "using the low resolution photographic images acquired from the first image capture device to identify candidate locations of the product labels," as recited in claim 1 ( emphasis added), because it does not identify candidate locations of the 4 Appeal2018-002087 Application 14/303,809 product labels from the identified "low resolution" photographic images acquired from the first image capture device. The Examiner identifies Zimmerman's "RFID reader" as the claimed image-capture device capturing low resolution image data. Final Act. 3 ("RFID reader, where the RFID reader captures low resolution image/data such as a code"). Paragraph 50 of Zimmerman contains no teaching of using Zimmerman's captured RFID tags to identify candidate locations of the product labels. App. Br. 16-17. Rather, paragraph 50 of Zimmerman describes reading RFID tags on pallets and containers in backrooms to provide inventory. Zimmerman ,r 50. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9, 10, and 23. The Examiner does not allege Silverstein remedies the deficiencies of Zimmerman and Prudhomme discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 23 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation