Ex Parte Candelore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

14609675 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/609,675 01/30/2015
36738 7590 01/30/2019
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brant Candelore
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.
201304816.01 9402
EXAMINER
MENGESHA, MULUGETA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANT CANDELORE
Appeal2018-005797 1
Application 14/609,675
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Sony Corp. is listed as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-005797
Application 14/609,675
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to a "network that provides content which
can be reactive to viewers" by "determining the age/sex of the viewers and
evaluating their emotional involvement with the content, and then adapting
content to what is being sensed about the viewers." Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1-7
and 17-29 are pending, of which claims 1, 20, and 22 are independent. See
Final Act. 8-12. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (formatting and
emphasis added):
1. A device comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium having
instructions executable by a processor;
at least one processor configured for accessing the
computer readable storage medium to execute the instructions to
configure the processor for:
receiving an image of a person viewing a display on which
content is being presented;
executing image recognition on the image to establish at
least first and second parameters of the person;
the first parameter including a demographic parameter
correlated with a less graphic degree of content, the second
parameter including a facial expression indicating the person
likes the video content,
the first parameter taking precedence over the second
parameter;
responsive to the first and second parameters, presenting
the less graphic degree of content regardless of the facial
expression indicating that the person likes the video content.
References and Re} ections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
2
Appeal2018-005797
Application 14/609,675
Stevens
Kandekar
Capio
Aronsson
Oliver
US 2009/0024925 Al Jan. 22, 2009
US 2009/0288131 Al Nov. 19, 2009
US 2010/0048300 Al Feb. 25, 2010
US 2013/0283162 Al Oct. 24, 2013
US 2015/0067717 Al Mar. 5, 2015
Claims 1---6, 20, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(a)(l)
as being anticipated by Aronsson. Final Act. 4.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Aronsson and Stevens. Final Act. 9.
Claims 17-19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aronsson and Kandekar. Final Act. 9.
Claims 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Aronsson, Oliver, and Kandekar. Final Act. 10.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Aronsson and Capio. Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments, considering only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs. We adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own,
and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Aronsson anticipates
the independent claim 1 requirement that, "responsive to the first and second
parameters, a less graphic degree of video content is presented regardless of
the facial expression indicating that the person likes the video content."
App. Br. 4. Particularly, Appellant argues the cited portions of Aronsson
"do not discuss resolving a conflict between contradictory parameters,"
3
Appeal2018-005797
Application 14/609,675
rather "the goal of Aronsson, [] is to provide what the user likes regardless
of whether the user may be in a demographic that should not be presented
with content that may not be appropriate for the demographic." App. Br. 4,
5---6 (citing Aronsson ,r 75). Appellant further contends that, although
Aronsson discloses "prohibitions typically are entered into young peoples'
profiles, they are manually entered nonetheless and thus empirically
determined by the user who enters them, not by the computer using the
claimed algorithm" as claimed. Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Aronsson anticipates the
second parameter, as claimed, because Aronsson discloses a sensor module
"detects various sensor measurements from a user than can be indicative of a
user emotional state in reaction to viewed content, which can include a
variety of physical parameters such as facial expressions." Aronsson ,r 42.
Aronsson anticipates the claimed first parameter, because Aronsson
discloses the "sensor module also may include face recognition features,
which in addition to emotional state determination, can be employed to
determine a user identity (and thus such user features as age and gender)."
Id.
Aronsson, furthermore, describes resolving a conflict between the first
and second parameters, as claimed. See Ans. 2-3. Aronsson provides an
example where a scene is extended if a user is excited, but "[i]f however, a
prediction is made that a scene would be inappropriate to a user (such as
based on the user age), the metadata may include an associated modification
entry to delete the scene." Aronsson ,r 44 (emphasis added). The "however"
indicates that the user age ( first parameter) takes precedence over the
detected user excitement (second parameter), regardless of the user's facial
4
Appeal2018-005797
Application 14/609,675
expression indicating that the person likes the video content. See Ans. 3.
Any other reading of Aronsson would render the age-based parameters
meaningless.
Additionally, Aronsson explains the user profile can include both the
user's age and an image "from which a user can be identified by the face
detection camera," and age-inappropriate content can be restricted by
"outright prohibition" and set by parental controls. Aronsson ,r,r 69, 72;
Ans. 3. An ordinarily skilled artisan would, thus, understand that Aronsson
establishes a demographic parameter ( e.g., the user's age) based on image
recognition (see Aronsson ,r,r 42, 69) in order to apply the relevant controls,
regardless of the user's facial expressions (see Aronsson ,r,r 44, 72). See
Ans. 2-3; see also In re Preda, 401 F .2d 825, 826 ( CCP A 1968) ("[I]n
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.")
( citation omitted).
We find unpersuasive Appellant's contention that Aronsson's
paragraph 75 "resolve[s] the conflict of receiving a favorable facial
expression for a scene that is inappropriate for the viewer's demographics."
Reply Br. 3. This paragraph provides an example wherein "a user model
may have a preference for high action while romance is not preferred," but
"a user may have a strong favorable emotional reaction to a romance scene
within an action movie," so the system will "determin[ e] that the weight
of the emotional reaction supersedes the negative preference in the user
profile." Aronsson ,r 75. Contrary to Appellant's arguments, this example
has nothing to do with the user's demographics such as age. See App. Br. 6.
5
Appeal2018-005797
Application 14/609,675
Instead, this paragraph teaches balancing the user's historical and current
facial expressions (i.e., the second parameter). See Aronsson ,r,r 74--76; Ans.
4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Aronsson, read as a whole,
discloses the first parameter taking precedence over the second parameter.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding
Aronsson discloses the limitations of independent claim 1. Appellant does
not provide additional separate arguments for the remaining claims. See
App. Br. 4, 7. Thus, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2-7 and 17-29 for the same reasons.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7 and 17-29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6