Motorola Mobility LLCDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 29, 20212020003203 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/681,891 04/08/2015 Lawrence A. Willis MM01028USNP 4251 138602 7590 09/29/2021 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER TORRENTE, RICHARD T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2485 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/29/2021 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com docketing.mobility@motorola.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LAWRENCE A. WILLIS, JUSTIN ELTOFT, and JIRI SLABY Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 Technology Center 2400 BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and JAMES W. DEJMEK Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–17, and 19–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Motorola Mobility, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to “iris acquisition using visible light imaging.” Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for iris acquisition using visible light imaging, the method comprising: determining that a user of a mobile device is wearing glasses utilizing ambient light or projected visible light; bisecting a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens of the glasses; projecting near infra-red light to encompass the determined bisection center point of the lens effective to illuminate a pupil of at least one eye of the user; and locating the pupil of the at least one eye based on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Trumm US 2011/0007269 A1 Jan. 13, 2011 Wang US 2014/0147021 A1 May 29, 2014 Guo US 2016/0103484 A1 Apr. 14, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Trumm and Guo. Final Act. 2–4. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Trumm, Guo, and Wang. Final Act. 4. Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 3 OPINION The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9–12, 14, 15, 17, and 19–23 over Trumm and Guo The Examiner finds Trumm and Guo teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner finds Trumm teaches “bisecting a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Final Act. 2 (citing Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 70, 72, 78, 80; Fig. 9a). The Examiner further finds Trumm teaches “locating the pupil of the at least one eye based on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a reflection of the [light] from the pupil at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Final Act. 2 (citing Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 58, 82; Fig. 9a). Appellant presents the following principal arguments: i. Trumm does not teach “bisecting a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Appeal Br. 10–12; see also Reply Br. 3–6. “Trumm does not use these horizontal and vertical planes (70, 72) in any way related to locating the pupils of the eyes, and in fact, there is not even a designator in the Trumm figures to identify the point at which a vertical plane crosses a horizontal plane.” Appeal Br. 11. “[T]here is no teaching or indication whatsoever of a determined center point of a lens of the glasses (‘spectacles’) in Trumm.” Appeal Br. 12. ii. Trumm does not teach “locating the pupil of the at least one eye based on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a reflection of the [light] from the pupil at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). Appeal Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 4 Br. 13–15; see also Reply Br. 6–7. “Trumm specifically states that preferably, pupil center points are determined automatically by a user data positioning device (e.g. computer mouse or pointer on a touchscreen) based on reflections from the corneas of the eyes due to illumination, and that the pupil center points of the right eye and the left eye can be determined by an optician on the basis of the reflections.” Appeal Br. 13 (citing Trumm ¶ 202). Trumm directly states that measuring errors in the determination of the actual position of wear are thereby avoided or are very few, since the positions of the pupil centers relative to the glasses are not determined through the lenses, but by means of the auxiliary points.[] Trumm clearly teaches away from any notion of using a bisection center point of a lens to locate the pupil of an eye. Appeal Br. 14 (citing Trumm ¶ 254). “[T]he ‘corneal vertex distance’ described by Trumm is in reference to fitting the glasses and checking the position of the lenses relative to the eyes or pupils after the location of the pupils have already been determined and used for the individual fitting of the lenses.” Appeal Br. 14 (citing Trumm ¶ 245). In response, the Examiner explains Trumm fig. 5 clearly shows left lens 50 is bisected horizontally via left intersection point 66 and right intersection point 66 (see dash line 70 in fig. 5), and vertically via upper intersection point 68 and lower intersection point 68 (see dash line 72 in fig. 5) to determine a bisection center point of the lens (see dash lines 70 and 72 intersecting as the lens center point in fig. 5), wherein ¶ [0213] discloses the intersection points 66 (left 66 and right 66) and points 68 (upper 68 and lower 68) are determined by either an optician or automatically. Note that this bisecting of the lens to determine the center point is further supported by fig. 9a, wherein it is seen that the bisection center point location is determined and the[n] utilized to determine the “corneal vertex distance (HSA). Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 5 Ans. 7. The Examiner further explains Trumm similarly disclose[s] recognizing the pupil from captured image reflection (e.g. see pupil center determined via optician or image recognition software in ¶ [0213]) and its location is determined based on the center lens (see the pupil locating based on approximately (distance) from the determined lens center in fig. 9a, wherein the HSA [(corneal vertex distance)] measurement locates the pupil from the center of the lens). Note Trumm fig. 9a shows a short line connecting the center of the pupil with [the] bisection center point of the lens representing the “corneal vertex distance (HSA)”. Ans. 8. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Appellant’s argument (i) does not show any reversible Examiner error, and we determine Trumm teaches “bisecting a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically to determine a bisection center point of the lens of the glasses” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) because dashed lines 70 and 72 bisect a lens of the glasses horizontally and vertically, and the intersection of these dashed lines determines the bisection center point of the lens. Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 70, 72; see also Trumm, Fig. 5, elements 78, 80; Fig. 9a. In reference to Figure 5, Trumm discloses “[p]referably, the pupil center points 58, 60 are determined automatically by a user data positioning device (not shown). To this end, reflexes 82 are used, which arise on the corneas of the respective eyes 54, 56 due to the illuminants 28.” Trumm Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 6 ¶ 202. Also in reference to Figure 5, Trumm further discloses “[t]he pupil center points 58 and 60 of the right eye 54 and the left eye 56, respectively, can be determined on the basis of the reflexes 82 for the right eye 54 and the left eye 56.” Trumm ¶ 203. In reference to Figure 6, Trumm further discloses “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data illustrated in FIG. 6.” Trumm ¶ 212. Finally, Trumm further discloses The intersection points 66, 68, 74, 76 or the pupil center points 58, 60 can be determined by an optician and input by means of a computer mouse (not shown). Alternatively, the monitor 18 may be designed as a “touch screen”, and the intersection points 66, 68, 74, 76 or the pupil center points 58, 60 can be determined and input directly by means of the monitor 18. Alternatively, these data can also be generated automatically by means of image recognition software. Trumm ¶ 213 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant’s argument (ii) does not show any reversible Examiner error, and we further determine Trumm teaches “locating the pupil of the at least one eye based on the determined bisection center point of the lens and based on a reflection of the [light] from the pupil at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) because Trumm discloses automatically generating intersection points 66 and 68, which determine dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and automatically generating pupil center point 58, using image recognition software. Trumm ¶ 213; see also Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212 (disclosing pupil center points are determined based on reflexes). Put another way, we determine a skilled artisan would have understood Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil center point Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 7 58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and based on the reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Regarding independent claims 9 and 17, Appellant presents the same arguments as presented for claim 1. See Appeal Br. 15–17; see also Reply Br. 7. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 17. Claim 4 further recites “locating the pupil of the at least one eye using the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil of the at least one eye.” The Examiner finds Trumm teaches the further recited subject matter of claim 4. Final Act. 3 (citing Trumm Fig. 6). The Examiner explains Trumm fig. 6 relating to fig. 5 discussed in claim 1 shows that the center point of the lens is fixed and reused at the intersect of the vertical and horizontal plane even when the eyes moves off the center. Thus, Trumm discloses locating the pupil of the at least one eye using the determined center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil of the at least one eye (see fig. 6, wherein the fixed center location from fig. 5 is known, thus, as a starting point to determine the pupil distance when the eye moves to new location). Ans. 8. Appellant argues “[t]here is no discussion or indication in Trumm of locating the pupil of an eye ‘using the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil of the at least one eye.’” Appeal Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 7–9. Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 8 We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. We emphasize that in considering the disclosure of a reference, “it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). As discussed above, we determine a skilled artisan would have understood Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil center point 58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and based on the reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213. Given this determination, and Trumm’s disclosure in reference to Figure 6 that “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data illustrated in FIG. 6” (Trumm ¶ 212), we further determine Trumm teaches “locating the pupil of the at least one eye using the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses as a starting point of a location search for the pupil of the at least one eye” (claim 4). See Trumm ¶ 213 (“[T]hese data can also be generated automatically by means of image recognition software.”). Put another way, because we determine a skilled artisan would have considered the bisection center point and reflexes with image recognition software to locate the pupil, we determine starting the search at the bisection center point would have been well within the grasp of a skilled artisan. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4. Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 9 Regarding claims 12 and 22, Appellant presents the same arguments as presented for claim 4. See Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply Br. 9. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 22. Claim 6 further recites “determining the reflection of the near infra- red light from the pupil as the closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses.” The Examiner finds Trumm teaches the further recited subject matter of claim 6. Final Act. 3 (citing Trumm Fig. 6); see also Ans. 9–10. Appellant argues “[t]here is no discussion or indication in Trumm of ‘determining the reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil as the closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point of the lens of the glasses’” Appeal Br. 20; see also Reply Br. 9–10. We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. As discussed above, we determine a skilled artisan would have understood Trumm as suggesting image recognition software locating pupil center point 58 based on the intersection points 66 and 68, which determine dashed lines 70 and 72 to define the bisection center point of the lens, and based on the reflexes 82, which are at approximately the determined bisection center point of the lens. Trumm ¶¶ 202, 203, 212, 213. Given this determination, and Trumm’s disclosure in reference to Figure 6 that “[a]nalogously, the pupil center points 58, 60 may also be determined by means of the reflexes 83 on the basis of the image data illustrated in FIG. 6” (Trumm ¶ 212), we further determine Trumm teaches “determining the reflection of the near infra-red light from the pupil as the closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point of the lens of Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 10 the glasses.” (claim 6). See Trumm ¶ 213 (“[T]hese data can also be generated automatically by means of image recognition software.”). Put another way, because we determine a skilled artisan would have considered the bisection center point and reflexes with image recognition software to locate the pupil, we determine locating the pupil at the closest reflection point to the determined bisection center point would have been well within the grasp of a skilled artisan. See Preda, 401 F.2d at 826. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Regarding claims 14 and 19, Appellant presents the same arguments as presented for claim 6. See Appeal Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 10. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 19. We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21, and 23, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br. 21. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 16 over Trumm, Guo, and Wang Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and claim 16 depends from claim 9. Appellant does not present any additional arguments for this ground of rejection. Appeal Br. 21. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 16 for the same reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 9. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–12, 14–17, and 19– 23 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-003203 Application 14/681,891 11 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 7, 9– 12, 14, 15, 17, 19–23 103 Trumm, Guo 1–4, 6, 7, 9– 12, 14, 15, 17, 19–23 8, 16 103 Trumm, Guo, Wang 8, 16 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–12, 14–17, 19– 23 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation