International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 12, 2021

2020002168 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/849,016 12/20/2017 Vijay Kumar Ananthapur Bache P201703715US01 1819
37945 7590 10/12/2021
DUKE W. YEE
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
DEMETER, HILINA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2674
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2021 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VIJAY KUMAR ANANTHAPUR BACHE,
VIJAY EKAMBARAM, SRIKANTH K. MURALI, and
PADMANABHA VENKATAGIRI SHESADRI
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016
Technology Center 2600

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20.2 Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed August 15,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed January 23, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action mailed May 17, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed November 25, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed
December 20, 2017 (“Spec.”). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings
and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant:
The disclosure relates generally to smart garments and more
specifically to generating a risk and constraint labeled context
map of an operational space corresponding to a user of a risk
prediction and reduction cognitive suit to drive an inflatable/
deflatable actuation apparatus embedded in the risk prediction
and reduction cognitive suit contextually using three-dimension
reconstruction of the operational space, virtual reality, semi-
supervised learning, and embedded sensors.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized
in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a risk and
constraint labeled context map of an operational space, the
computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a data processing system, the risk and
constraint labeled context map of the operational space
corresponding to a user of a cognitive suit to drive the cognitive
suit contextually using three-dimension reconstruction, virtual
reality, and semi-supervised learning;
associating, by the data processing system, labeled risks
and constraints in the risk and constraint labeled context map
with cognitive suit actuation events to deploy a set of mitigation
strategies to address the labeled risks and constraints; and
actuating, by the data processing system, an apparatus
embedded in the cognitive suit to deploy the set of mitigation
strategies in response to sensing a labeled risk or labeled
constraint proximate to the user along a trajectory of the user in
the operational space.
Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

3

Name Reference Date
Holz et al.
(“Holz”)
US 9,754,167 Bl Sept. 5, 2017
Tran et al.
(“Tran”)
US 2017/0318360 Al Nov. 2, 2017
Fukaya et al.
(“Fukaya”)
Protection against impact with the
ground using wearable airbags,
Industrial Health, Vol. 46, 59–65
(2008), doi:10.2486/indhealth.46.59
2008
The Examiner rejects:
a. claims 1–13 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Holz and Tran (Final Act. 10–30); and
b. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Holz, Tran, and Fukaya. Id. at 30–31.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of references
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “generating, by a data
processing system, the risk and constraint labeled context map of the
operational space corresponding to a user of a cognitive suit to drive the
cognitive suit contextually using three-dimension reconstruction, virtual
reality, and semi-supervised learning,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Holz and Tran. Final Act. 10–13. The Examiner relies upon Holz’s
disclosure of a wearable sensor (e.g., a head mounted display or “HMD”)
configured to generate an alert in response to detecting an object
approaching a user for teaching the limitations of claim 1 “except for
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

4
specifically teaching a cognitive suit instead [of a] wearable HMD.” Id. at
12 (citing Holz 28:51–59, 29:52–55, 62–30: 3, and Figs. 17–19). The
Examiner finds Tran’s disclosure of electronic devices taking various forms
including, inter alia, as “a wearable device (e.g., a Head-Mounted Device
(HMD) [or], electronic clothes” teaches the cognitive suit of claim 1. Id. at
12 (citing Tran ¶ 21). The Examiner finds it would have been obvious to
modify Holz’s alerting system to incorporate Tran’s electronic clothing
implementation “in order to provide[] stretch, flex and twist to conform to a
body and stretch, flex and twist to move or deform with a body.” Id. at 12–
13 (citing Tran ¶ 102).
Appellant contends that, inter alia, Holz fails to teach claim 1’s
generating step, arguing as follows:
Holz describes (i) ‘capturing’ a sequence of images using a
camera, (ii) ‘tracking’ a physical object ahead of a user, and
(iii) ‘distinguishing’ among different approaching physical
objects. Notably, there is no mention of generating a context
‘map’ of an operational space corresponding to a user to drive a
cognitive suit contextually using three-dimension
reconstruction, virtual reality, and semi-supervised learning, as
claimed. Instead, objects are tracked and distinguished -
without regards to any ‘map’ generation to drive anything using
three-dimension reconstruction, virtual reality, and semi-
supervised learning, as claimed.
Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds, as follows:
Holz in addition to the cited portion, disclosed in col. 3, lines 5–
8, a wearable sensor system includes capabilities to
autonomously create a map of an environment surrounding a
user of a virtual reality device. The map can be advantageously
employed to track hazards, objects, opportunities, or other
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

5
points potentially of interest (Note that it is implicit in a virtual
reality systems, there is a mapping of objects and such mapping
is programmed for the HMO via a machine learning steps, also
see col. 2, lines 63- col.3, line 4).
Ans. 4.
Appellant replies, as follows:
Holz describes creating a map of an environment surrounding a
user of a virtual reality device. This environment-based map is
different from the claimed context map since this Holz map is
not described as being specially generated “to drive the
cognitive suit contextually using three-dimension
reconstruction, virtual reality, and semi-supervised learning” as
per the claimed ‘context map[.]’ Instead, the Holz map is
described as being used to ‘track’ hazards, objects,
opportunities, and other points of interest (Holz col. 3, lines 7-
9).
Reply Br. 2.
We are persuaded the rejection is improper because the Examiner fails
to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show that Holz teaches or
suggests claim 1’s generating step. In particular, we find insufficient
evidence that Holz’s wearable senor generates a context map using three-
dimension reconstruction, virtual reality, and semi-supervised learning.
Appellant’s Specification discloses that semi-supervised learning
analyzes both user input and feedback to infer labels for risks and
constraints, as follows:
Risk and constraint manager 218 utilizes semi-supervised
learning module 230 to analyze and learn from user input 258
and user feedback 260. User input 258 represents user labeling
of risks and constraints within the operational space. User
feedback 260 represents accuracy of labels and effectiveness of
deployed actuation events. Semi-supervised learning module
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

6
230 infers labels for unlabeled risks and constraints using the
set of labeled training data (i.e., user input 258) and modifies
actuation events based on user feedback 260.
Spec. ¶ 41.
Claim 1 recites generating a context map using a combination of three
processes, three-dimension reconstruction, virtual reality, and semi-
supervised learning, all three of which are required. However, we find no
corresponding description in Holz of map generation using learning, much
less the semi-supervised learning of claim 1. Furthermore, the Examiner
fails to provide sufficient evidence in support of the finding that “it is
implicit in a virtual reality systems, there is a mapping of objects and such
mapping is programmed for the HMD via . . . machine learning steps.” See
Ans. 4. Instead, the portion of Holz cited by the Examiner implies map
creation does not involve user input, i.e. is unsupervised, as follows: “In one
implementation, a wearable sensor system includes capabilities to
autonomously create a map of an environment surrounding a user of a
virtual reality device.” Holz 3: 5–7. Thus, the implication is that any
process, including any learning otherwise found to be implied by the
Examiner, is autonomous and not semi-supervised as required by claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1,
or the rejection of independent claims 16 and 17 which include language
similar to the argued limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection
of dependent claims 2–15, and 18–20 which stand with their respective base
Appeal 2020-002168
Application 15/849,016

7
CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of
a. claims 1–13 and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Holz and Tran; and
b. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Holz, Tran, and Fukaya.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–13, 15–20 103 Holtz, Tran 1–13, 15–20
14 103 Holtz, Tran,
Fukaya
14
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED