Ex Parte Kinoshita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 3, 2018

13892907 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/892,907 05/13/2013
117548 7590 12/05/2018
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Omron
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Koichi Kinoshita
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.
1052-0005 5722
EXAMINER
LEE, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/05/2018 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 KO I CHI KIN OS HIT A, AMBRISH TY AGI,
JOHN DRINKARD, and YOSHIHARU TANI
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JENNIFER S. BISK, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed May 13, 2013; "Non-Final Act." for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed November 23, 2016; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief,
filed May 22, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed July 19,
201 7; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed September 19, 2017.
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Omron Corporation. App.
Br. 2.
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
BACKGROUND
Appellants' invention relates to guaranteeing minimum contrast for a
machine vision system. Spec. i-f2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of verifying minimum object contrast within a field
of view as seen by one or more imagine sensors of a machine vision
system, said method comprising:
processing image data as acquired by the one or more
imaging sensors while a test object was at a minimum-contrast
position within the field of view, said image data being
intensity image data or 3D range data;
calculating, based on said processing, a contrast value for
the test object; and determining whether the contrast value
meets a minimum contrast requirement, as represented by a
predefined threshold.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(b) as
being anticipated by Kjeldsen et al. (US 2006/0153452 Al; published
July 13, 2006, "Kjeldsen"). Non-Final Act. 2.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence in the
record. Exparte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
2
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
Claims 1 and 4
Appellants argue claims 1 and 4 together as a group. See App. Br. 7-
10. Therefore, consistent with the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv),
we limit our discussion to independent claim 1. Independent claim 4 stands
or falls with claim 1.
The Examiner finds Kjeldsen teaches all the claimed limitations.
Non-Final Act. 2. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Kjeldsen's
"document 125 or the text region (para. 0027)" as teaching the claimed test
object. Ans. 3. Appellants argue that Kjeldsen's document 125 "is not
image data corresponding to the field of view as seen by one or more
imaging sensors of a machine vision system" and does not "include pixel
data corresponding to a test object located at a position of minimum contrast
within an image sensor's field of view." App. Br. 8. Appellants add that
Kjeldsen does not suggest "that the document was ( even incidentally)
positioned so that the text region in question was positioned at a 'minimum
contrast position' with the field of view of Kjeldsen's document imaging
camera." Reply Br. 5.
Kjeldsen states that "[a] digital image source, such as a digital still or
video camera, uses its area of vision 115 to scan a document 125" and
"determine[s] if it contains a text region." Kjeldsen ,r,r 20, 27. We agree
with the Examiner that this discloses image data corresponding to the field
of view as seen by one or more imaging sensors of a machine vision system.
See Ans. 3. 3 In addition, Kjeldsen describes checking to make sure the
3 .Although Appellants argue that the Examiner made "new argument
amount[ing] to new ground of rejection" (Reply Br. 2) in the Answer,
3
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
captured text region contains "enough contrast" and, if not, "the user is
advised to adjust the lighting." Kjeldsen ,r 34. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that this discloses that "under certain conditions, the
initial setting of the document 125 meets the minimum-contrast position as
claimed because the detected text, including [the] captured image of the
document 125 as a whole, is at its lowest contrast position before being
enhanced." Ans. 3. Nothing in the claims require, and, therefore, it is not
relevant that "there are portions of the field of view not being considered."
See Reply Br. 5. Appellants' arguments regarding the deficiencies of
Kjeldsen's disclosure of the claimed test object, therefore, do not persuade
us of Examiner error.
Appellants also argue "the cited processing in Kjeldsen refers to
maximum and minimum contrasts for a neighborhood of pixels around a
selected pixel in a document image, which are not required minimum
contrasts applicable to verifying the imaging of a test object that was imaged
while physically positioned within a field of view at a minimum contrast
position." App. Br. 8. Appellants' argument is, at least in part, based on
their interpretation of the claim as requiring the test object to be "a physical
object in physical space, and the minimum-contrast position is a particular
location within the physical area or volume captured in the sensor's field of
view. Id. at 9 ( citing Spec. Figs. 1, 7, 8, 9). Under this interpretation,
Appellants assert that Kjeldsen's process of determining contrast differences
among pixels in a particular neighborhood of the text region does not
involve a "test object" or a "'minimum contrast' value against which the
Appellants have elected to maintain the appeal by filing a reply brief See
37 C.F.R. § 41.39(b)(2) (2016).
4
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
observed contrast of an imaged test object is assessed." Id. Appellants'
construction of the claim language, however, is too narrow. The claims do
not include any language requiring that the test object be a "physical object
in physical space." See Ans. 5. Moreover, there is no language in the claims
that excludes calculating the minimum contrast value using a subset of the
pixels in the test object. See id. at 4--5. To the contrary, the Specification
discusses using pixel intensity to determine contrast. See Spec. ,r,r 3
("Generally a vision system relies on contrast of pixel brightness to detect
objects."), 45 ("[M]achine vision system 14 ... includes ... image-
processing circuitry that is already adapted for processing image sensor data
for the field of view and determining corresponding pixel intensity and/or
3 D range data.").
Appellants also argue that "the minimum contrast value for a
neighborhood of pixels is not a predefined threshold" because it "serves as a
dynamic reference point." Reply Br. 3. However, as Appellants note (Reply
Br. 4), Kjeldsen assesses, for each region, whether there is "enough contrast"
in the text image. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that
a predefined threshold would be used to determine "enough contrast." In
addition, in step 409, Kjeldsen explicitly describes determining whether
contrast "is less than a threshold value." Kjeldsen, ,r 47, Fig. 4A.
Appellants do not point to any language in the claims or [S]pecification, nor
do we see any, that requires the threshold value be constant regardless of the
portion of the test object being processed.
Finally, Appellants argue that Figures 2B and 4A of Kjeldsen
"involve distinct embodiments" that cannot be combined to show
anticipation. Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, "[t]he contrast check of
5
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
Step 223 assesses a processed, cropped, and grey-scaled text image to assess
whether the contrast of the text image is good enough," but "[t]he contrast
operations in steps 405, 407, 409, 411, and 413 instead involve a black-and-
white forcing function." Id. at 4. We do not agree with Appellants' reading
of these portions of Kjeldsen as describing two separate embodiments.
Instead, the two figures discuss two portions of the same embodiment.
Figure 2 discusses capturing images of document 125 and Figure 4 discusses
enhancing the contrast of that captured image. We are, therefore, not
persuaded the Examiner erred in relying on Figures 2B and 4A for the
anticipation rejection.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
4.
Claims 3 and 6
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites "wherein, in the case that
3D range data is used, the contrast value for the test object is determined
based on at least one of: the presence or absence of 3D range data
corresponding to the test object at the minimum contrast position, the
density and/or a statistical property of the 3D range data at pixel positions
corresponding to the surface extents of the test object." App. Br. 13, Claims
Appx. Claim 6 depends from claim 4 and recites an identical limitation. Id.
at 14. Appellants argue, and the Examiner "does not contest" (Ans. 6), that
Kjeldsen does not disclose acquiring or using 3D range data. App. Br. 10-
11. The Examiner, however, argues that because "the claim contains
alternative claim language of 'at least one of,' Kjeldsen still meets 'the
absence of 3D range data corresponding to the test object at the minimum
contrast position' as claimed." Ans. 6.
6
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
We do not agree with the Examiner's conclusion regarding 3D range
data. The first clause of the claim states "in the case that 3D range data is
used." As the Examiner does not contest that Kjeldsen does not describe
acquiring or using 3D range data, we cannot sustain the anticipation
rejection of claims 3 and 6.
Claims 7 and 9
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 9 as anticipated by Kjeldsen. Non-
Final Act. 2. Appellants do not argue these claims beyond the arguments
made for claims 1 and 4 discussed above. App. Br. 7-12. These arguments
however, are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Consequently,
we find Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's factual
findings that Kjeldsen anticipates claims 7 and 9.
Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 7 and recites "wherein the one or more
interface circuits are further configured to record or otherwise output one or
more signals indicating whether the minimum contrast requirement is met."
App. Br. 14, Claims App'x. Appellants argue that Kjeldsen does not
disclose this limitation. App. Br. 11-12. As discussed above, Kjeldsen
describes checking whether the contrast between pixels in a certain area is
below a threshold value ( step 411 ), and if so, checks whether the individual
pixel is above or below a threshold (step 413). Kjeldsen ,r,r 47--48, Fig. 4A.
We agree with the Examiner that these thresholds equate to the claimed
minimum contrast. A person of ordinary skill in the art would, therefore,
understand Kjeldsen to disclose interface circuits configured to record or
output one or more signals indicating whether the contrast requirement is
met, as claimed by claim 8. Consequently, we find Appellants' arguments
7
Appeal2017-011643
Application 13/892,907
do not show error in the Examiner's factual findings that Kjeldsen
anticipates claim 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4, and 7-9.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 3 and 6.
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-IN-PART
8