Ex Parte Drinkard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 23, 2017

13298416 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2017)

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.
13/298,416 11/17/2011 John Drinkard 1002-0003 9256
117548 7590 08/25/2017
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Omron
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2127
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/25/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN DRINKARD
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, SHARON FENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Omron Scientific Technologies, Inc. as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
Introduction
Appellant’s Specification states the “invention generally relates to
monitoring zones, such as the area or volume around a hazardous machine,
secure location, or Autonomous Guided Vehicle (AGV), and particularly
relates to the use of multiple sensors for zone monitoring.” Spec. 12. There
are two independent claims, 1 and 10 (respectively, an apparatus claim and a
method claim), that are “directed to substantially the same subject matter.”
App. Br. 11. Claims 1 and 10 recite:
1. A monitoring apparatus configured to detect
objects within an area or volume referred to as a monitoring
zone and to detect intrusions of objects according to configured
boundaries defined with respect to the monitoring zone, the
monitoring apparatus comprising:
a plurality of sensors, each configured to monitor for
intrusions according to a configured boundary and each sensor
having a communication interface to receive configuration data
defining the configured boundary to be monitored by the sensor
and send intrusion detection information responsive to detecting
object intrusions according to the configured boundary; and
a control unit comprising:
a configuration interface to receive control unit
configuration data, the control unit configuration data
defining control unit behavior with respect to each
sensor, including defining a control response by the
control unit with respect to the intrusion detection
information received from each sensor;
a communication interface communicatively
coupling the control unit to the plurality of sensors and
configured to send sensor configuration data to
corresponding ones among the plurality of sensors, to
thereby define the configured boundary at each sensor,
and to receive the intrusion detection information from
each sensor;
2
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
a number of outputs configured to provide signals to
external devices or systems; and
one or more processing circuits configured to control the
outputs responsive to the intrusion detection information from
each sensor, in accordance with the control response defined for
the sensor.
10. A method of monitoring an area or volume
referred to as a monitoring zone and detecting intrusions of
objects according to configured boundaries defined with respect
to the monitoring zone, the method comprising:
sending sensor configuration data from a control unit to
respective sensors among a plurality of sensors that are
communicatively linked to the control unit, to configure a
monitoring boundary used by each respective sensor for
detecting object intrusions into least a portion of the monitoring
zone;
receiving control unit configuration data at the control
unit, and configuring a control response of the control unit with
respect to each sensor according to the control unit
configuration data; and
receiving intrusion detection information from given
ones of the sensors, and controlling one or more outputs of the
control unit according to the control response defined for the
sensors from which the intrusion detection information is
received.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x).
The Rejection
Claims 1—14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Hellickson (US 2010/0053330 Al; Mar. 4, 2010). Final Act. 2-11.
ISSUES
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the five issues before us are whether
the Examiner errs in the rejection of: (1) claims 1 and 10, (2) claim 6,
3
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
(3) claims 7 and 11, (4) claims 8 and 13, and (5) claims 9 and 14. App. Br.
6-17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer. See Final Act. 2— 11, Ans. 2—10. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
Claims 1 and 10
Appellant argues “there is not a single sentence, drawing detail, or
other item in Hellickson that discloses a control unit having a
communication interface configured for distributing configured boundary
information to each sensor among a plurality of sensors,” as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 8. We disagree.
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, that the control unit includes “a
communication interface communicatively coupling the control unit to the
plurality of sensors and configured to send sensor configuration data to
corresponding ones among the plurality of sensors, to thereby define the
configured boundary at each sensor.” App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x). We
agree with the Examiner that Hellickson’s disclosure maps to the recited
claim requirements as follows:
(1) Hellickson’s “central command and control facility” maps to the
recited “control unit” (see 129);
(2) Hellickson’s “security sensors” map to the recited “plurality of
sensors” (see 18, 29, 34); and
4
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
(3) Hellickson’s sending of control data to camera sensors, e.g., to pan or
zoom the camera, maps to the control unit being “configured to send
sensor configuration data to corresponding ones among the plurality
of sensors, to thereby define the configured boundary at each sensor”
(see 1121, 27, 67—68, Fig. 9 (an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood the sensor fusion and situational awareness functions in
Hellickson’s Figure 9 to be part of the command and control facility)).
Appellant argues “Hellickson does not teach that there is any control
unit that is communicatively linked to all such sensors and configured to
send each sensor’s protected boundary definition information. Nor is it
inherent that such an arrangement be present in Hellickson.” App. Br. 8.
Appellant’s reference to a “protected” boundary is not commensurate with
the claim 1, which, in relevant part, requires each sensor have an “interface
to receive configuration data defining the configured boundary to be
monitored by the sensor.”
Hellickson’s command and control facility (“control unit”) clearly is
linked to and communicates with its security sensors. Thus, a skilled artisan
would have understood the control facility and the sensors in Hellickson
each necessarily include the “communication interfaces,” as recited in claim
1. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a command data sent to a
camera sensor to adjust its field of view constitutes “configuration data
defining the configured boundary.” See Final Act. 3 (citing Hellickson
^Hf 19, 27, 67 for this limitation). We also agree with the Examiner’s
explanation that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, in view of
Appellant’s Specification:
[t]he field of view (i.e., “window”) of each sensor is ... a
“boundary” since a view that is limited to a portion of a room
would inherently have specific viewing boundaries.
Additionally, if the sensor’s viewing angle or “window” can be
adjusted, then the field of view is configurable (i.e., “a
5
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
configured boundary”). The detection is with respect to such
configured boundary because an intrusion will be detected
when it within said boundary. Furthermore, since a camera
provides a view of its field of view to a monitoring center, then
this view is data of the configuration boundary.
Ans. 3.
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding
Hellickson discloses a control unit having a communication interface
configured for sending configuration data to thereby define the configured
boundary at each sensor, as recited in claim 1. Appellant also does not
persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Hellickson discloses the
corresponding method step requirements in claim 10, which we note does
not recite “a communication interface.”
Appellant further argues Hellickson “does not teach or suggest a
control unit that includes a configuration interface configured to receive
sensor configuration data defining specific control behavior to be exercised
with respect to different ones of Hellickson’s sensors.” App. Br. 10.
Appellant contends that “to the extent that Hellickson discusses responding
to detecting signals from its sensors, it generically describes alarms, camera
controls, etc., which appear to be common to all sensors and not defined
with respect to any particular sensor.” Id. This is unpersuasive.
The relevant requirement in claim 1 is for the control unit to have an
interface to receive “configuration data defining control unit behavior with
respect to each sensor, including defining a control response by the control
unit with respect to the intrusion detection information received from each
sensor.” App. Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Appellant’s Specification does not
limit the meaning of “control unit configuration data.” Because Hellickson
uses command data (“configuration data”) to zoom or pan its camera sensors
6
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
(“defining control unit behavior with respect to each sensor”) based on
detecting intruders from the sensor data (“with respect to the intrusion
detection information received from each sensor”), Appellant does not
persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Hellickson discloses this limitation.
See Hellickson || 20-33; see also Final Act. 3 and Ans. 8—10. Appellant
also does not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Hellickson discloses
the corresponding method step requirements in claim 10, which we note
does not recite “a configuration interface.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claims 1
and 10, and also of claims 2—5 and 11, for which Appellant offers no
substantive arguments separate from those for claims 1 and 10.
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the control unit is
configured to provide a user configuration interface and to set or adjust the
configured boundaries of the sensors based at least in part on user inputs
received via the user configuration interface.” App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Appellant argues Hellickson is silent as to a “user configuration
interface,” as recited, and that Hellickson does not disclose the added
requirements of claim 6 based on claim 1 ’s requirement for the control unit
to send boundary configuration data to the sensors. App. Br. 11—12. As the
Examiner finds, however, and we agree, Hellickson’s operator interface for
controlling the field of view of camera sensors discloses this requirement.
Final Act. 6 (citing Hellickson H 21, 27, 56); see also Ans. 7 (additionally
citing Hellickson || 40-41). In other words, Hellickson’s teaching of
allowing a user to adjust a camera’s field of view (e.g., 127) discloses
adjusting the configured boundary for that sensor.
7
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7 and 12
Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and recites that the control unit is
further configured to:
receive measurement data corresponding to field of view
data from a first one of the sensors;
receive or generate data representing a displayed
boundary representing the configured boundary of a second one
of the sensors as seen from the perspective of the first sensor;
provide the field of view data and the data representing
the displayed boundary via the user configuration interface;
adjust the data representing the displayed boundary
responsive to user inputs; and
adjust the configured boundary of the second sensor in
accordance with the adjustments made to the displayed
boundary.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Hellickson discloses
these requirements because Hellickson discloses “display of actual detected
target data or ‘situational awareness’ data associated with the detection of a
target,” which “does not describe anything remotely like the claimed
displaying and adjusting of sensor boundary information.” App. Br. 13. We
disagree.
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Hellickson discloses claim 7’s
recited requirement to “adjust the data representing the displayed boundary
responsive to user inputs” by disclosing configuring its cameras to monitor
“areas outside of originally marked monitoring area.” Final Act. 7 (citing
Hellickson H 21, 27, 56, 67—68) (emphasis omitted) (as discussed above,
the bounds of a displayed field of view from a camera correspond to a
8
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
recited displayed boundary). Also, by the plain meaning of the requirement
to “adjust the configured boundary of the second sensor in accordance with
the adjustments made to the displayed boundary,” Hellickson’s cameras’
fields of view are adjusted in response to user input to slew, pan, tilt, or
zoom the cameras. See, e.g., Hellickson H 21, 27.
Regarding claim 7’s requirement to “receive measurement data,” in
discussing the breadth and interpretation the claim terms, the Examiner finds
paragraph 21 of Hellickson discloses the recited requirement by disclosing
“provid[ing] for measurements to be obtained by a sensor device of a target
object in the field of view of the sensor.” Ans. 5—6. Appellant does not
dispute this finding. See Reply Br. 5. Cumulative to the Examiner’s
findings, we highlight the received measurement data does not affect any
subsequent method steps of the recited claim.
Regarding the requirement to “receive or generate data representing a
displayed boundary representing the configured boundary of a second one of
the sensors as seen from the perspective of the first sensor,” as recited, the
Examiner finds that two sensors with overlapping fields of view discloses
this requirement. Final Act. 6 (citing Hellickson || 41—42); Ans. 7—8
(citing, inter alia, Hellickson Fig. 8). Appellant does not persuade us the
Examiner errs in this finding. See App. Br. 12—13; Reply Br. 5. Appellant
does not explain how or why, given a camera’s field of view discloses a
boundary, this requirement of claim 7 does not encompass Hellickson’s
receiving and generating of field of view data from one camera’s view of
another camera’s view. In particular, Appellant does not persuasively
distinguish this claim limitation from Figure 8 of Hellickson, which shows
9
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
the view A2 from sensor A has a portion of B1 of sensor B’s field of view,
as seen from the perspective of sensor A. See Ans. 7—8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 7,
and also of claim 12, which depends from claim 10 through claim 11, and
which Appellant argues together with claim 2.
Claims 8 and 13
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the outputs
include one or more safety-critical outputs, and wherein the one or more
processing circuits control the safety critical outputs responsive to the
intrusion detection information from a particular sensor, in accordance with
the control response defined for that particular sensor.” App. Br. 20 (Claims
App ’x). The Examiner finds Hellickson’s “[ojutputs to alarms and
armament equipment” constitute the safety critical outputs, and that
Hellickson discloses controlling these according to the language of claim 8.
Final Act. 7 (citing Hellickson || 19, 21, 30, 77) (emphasis omitted).
Appellant contends:
Hellickson does not discuss safety-critical outputs or
suggest having a number of control outputs among which one
or more are considered as being safety-critical. Nor does
Hellickson teach or suggest any type of control unit that
receives configuration data that defines the control unit
behavior with respect to each sensor, including defining the
particular control response to be undertaken by the control unit
in response to receiving intrusion detection from a particular
sensor. At most, Hellickson broadly discusses “a control signal”
such as may be used to control one or more cameras, or an
“overall alarm” which by its labeling would seem to be a global
or general output irrespective of the particular sensors involved.
App. Br. 14.
10
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
This is unpersuasive. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood Hellickson’s alarm to be a “safety-critical output.” Also, by
reciting “one or more safety-critical outputs,” claim 8 does not require more
than one of claim 1 ’s “number of outputs configured to provide signals to
external devices or systems” be “safety-critical.” The ordinarily skilled
artisan would have understood Hellickson’s command and control center
includes “processing circuits” for its disclosed functionality, such as to
provide “different alarm levels based on the exact location and direction of
travel of a target” (121). We agree with the Examiner that such tracking of
such targets (or “intruding targets” (128)) for alarm purposes by any given
sensor constitutes “control[ling] the safety critical outputs responsive to the
intrusion detection information from a particular sensor, in accordance with
the control response defined for that particular sensor,” as recited by claim 8.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 8,
and also of claim 13, which Appellant argues together with claim 8.
Claims 9 and 14
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and requires the control unit be
“configured to identify the sensor from which intrusion detection
information is received, based on identifiers uniquely identifying each
sensor among the plurality of sensors, and is further configured to look up or
otherwise select the control response based on the identifier associated with
the intrusion detection information received at any given time by the control
unit.” App. Br. 21 (Claims App’x). The Examiner finds Hellickson’s
sensors that include GPS location signals disclose the recited “identifiers
uniquely identifying each sensor,” and that target tracking and identifying
“friend or foe” using this sensor information discloses the recited “control
11
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
response based on the identifier associated with the intrusion detection
information received at any given time,” as recited. Final Act. 7—8 (citing
Hellickson H 21, 27, 29-30, 34, 39, 43).
Appellant argues the Examiner errs because
Hellickson only broadly refers to the generation of camera
control signals and suggests, such as in paragraph [0021] that
geo-located data (i.e., for a detected intrusion) can be used to
slew, pan, tilt, or zoom cameras for a human operator. It would
seem, then, that this example suggests “camera control” as a
generalized or common response for all incoming sensor data.
App. Br. 15.
Appellant reads Hellickson too narrowly. Hellickson’s paragraph 21
discusses using sensor data output for a variety of purposes, such as target
identification and generating alarms, and does not limit this to doing so for a
human operator or for only generalized responses. Hellickson makes clear
that software can be used to automate the features its invention (Hellickson
177), such as “for moving the one or more video cameras in a direction of
the one or more potential intruders” {Id. at claim 3). The ordinarily skilled
artisan would have understood that identifying the camera and determining a
“control response” for that camera is part of the software control for
zooming, panning, or slewing a camera to track a target. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that Hellickson discloses the limitations of “look[ing] up
or otherwise selecting] the control response based on the identifier
associated with the intrusion detection information,” as recited by claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 9,
and also of claim 14, which Appellant argues together with claim 9.
12
Appeal 2016-002746
Application 13/298,416
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
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
13