Ex Parte Shinya

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 27, 2018

14189417 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/189,417 02/25/2014 20529 7590 05/01/2018 NATH, GOLDBERG & MEYER Joshua Goldberg 112 South West Street Alexandria, VA 22314 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tadao SHINY A 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. 33074U 6194 EXAMINER ABAZA, AYMAN A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2018 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): USPTO@nathlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte T ADAO SHINY A Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-8. App. Br. 18. 2 Claim 5 was canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as JVC Kenwood Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Rejection ("Final Act.") mailed November 28, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed March 22, 2017; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 1, 2017; and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 3, 2017. Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 THE INVENTION Appellant's invention controls a surveillance device. Spec. 1. Some surveillance devices operate in low-illumination environments---e.g., a parking lot at night. Id. These devices typically have a long exposure time. Id. This exposure time provides bright, sharp images of stationary objects. Id. But if the subject moves, the image blurs. Id. Some devices remedy this issue by switching to a short-period exposure when the device detects a change in the image. Id. According to the Specification, there exists a need to detect small changes in high-frequency components in a long-period exposure mode for such surveillance devices. Id. at 2. One embodiment of the invention alternately and repeatedly outputs long-exposure and short-exposure mode image signals. Id. at 10. The embodiment then equalizes the luminance of the signals imaged in different modes. Id. at 11. From the luminance amplitudes, the system can determine an increase or decrease in the high-frequency components in the image signals. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below with our emphasis: 1. A surveillance device, comprising: an imaging unit including an imaging device; a drive controller configured to control the imaging unit so that a surveillance area including a stationary background is imaged at a first exposure mode in which the imaging device is exposed for a first exposure period and imaged at a second exposure mode in which the imaging device is exposed for a second exposure period that is longer than the first exposure period, and so that one or more frames of a first image obtained by imaging the surveillance area in the first exposure mode and one or more frames of a second image obtained by imaging the surveillance area in the second exposure mode being alternately repeated; 2 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 a gain controller configured to control a gain of any one of a first luminance signal of the first image signal and a second luminance signal of the second image so as to set equal to each other luminance amplitudes of the first and second images due to a difference in exposure period; and a determination unit configured to detect a change between each frame of high frequency components included in the first and second luminance signals whose luminance amplitudes are set equal to each other by the gain controller, and to determine that an abnormal state has occurred in which a moving object enters the surveillance area when an amount of a detected change is equal to or larger than a predetermined value. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Boo Hasu et al. Oniki et al. US 2005/0010798 Al US 2013/0202202 Al US 2013/0215296 Al THE REJECTION Jan. 13,2005 Aug. 8, 2013 Aug.22,2013 Claims 1--4 and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Hasu, Oniki, and Boo. Final Act. 5-8. THE EXAMINER'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Examiner finds that Hasu teaches every limitation recited in representative3 claim 1 except for (1) the gain controller and (2) detecting 3 Appellant explains that dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 stand or fall with independent claim 1, and dependent claim 8 stands or falls with independent claim 4. App. Br. 6. Appellant further explains that the rejection of independent claims 4 and 7 should be reversed for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1 and summarizes those arguments in connection with claims 4 and 7. App. Br. 14, 17; Reply Br. 15-19. Accordingly, we select 3 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 high-frequency components between two consecutive images. Final Act. 5- 7. In concluding that claim 1 would have been obvious, the Examiner cites Oniki and Boo, respectively, as teaching these features. Id. at 6-7. In this proposed combination, the Examiner finds that Hasu repeatedly scans a charge-coupled device (CCD) to obtain the recited images having two exposure times. Id. at 5. In particular, the Examiner finds that Hasu's image data A, B, and C includes the recited image frames. Id. at 3; Ans. 11. APPELLANT'S CONTENTIONS Appellant argues that Hasu does not teach or suggest frames of a first image, imaged in a first exposure mode, being alternately repeated with frames of a second image, imaged in a second exposure mode, as recited. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 11-13. According to Appellant, Hasu obtains data from three read-out lines and generates a frame by combining three images with different exposure times. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 12. That is, Appellant contends that Hasu's image data A, B, and Care not alternately repeated frames. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 12-13. In Appellant's view, image data A, B, and C are combined to form the resulting High Dynamic Range (HDR) image, which corresponds to the image frame. Reply Br. 12. Appellant illustrates this argument using the figures reproduced below. Id. at 13. independent claim 1 as representative of claims 1--4 and 6-8. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 I !'<'<------- / / /] / // ( : seo:in d first i flrst rHicorw ~ffta~,e lrfFE~g\~ ~ in1ag'e ~n1 age L{Q) SCi --Â·1) set--Â£~) L{i~) l / J / / ~/////I //J ,/,. i/ !/ l,/ 1 f,~H~tmd , ________________ ._ ____ ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... ~ ---------------~ Appellant's illustrations above compare Hasu's 30-frame HDR image sequence with Appellant's alternately repeating first and second images. Reply Br. 13. In Appellant's view, Hasu's HDR frames are repeated with no intervening images. Id. at 12. Appellant further argues that neither Oniki nor Boo cures Hasu's deficiency. App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 14. 5 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 ANALYSIS The disputed limitation of claim 1 calls for, in part, "one or more frames of a first image obtained by imaging the surveillance area in the first exposure mode and one or more frames of a second image obtained by imaging the surveillance area in the second exposure mode being alternately repeated'' (emphasis added). Regarding this limitation, the Specification explains that the drive controller changes the exposure mode of the image unit from long to short. Spec. 6. Figure 6, reproduced in part below, shows image signal S20, which the signal-processing unit outputs. Id. at 9-10. {D) EXPOSURE TtME PER100 (c):MAGE SlGNALS20 Figure 6 also shows that image signal L(O) is obtained through an exposure for the period of frames 1 and 2. Id. The signal-processing unit outputs L(O) at frame 3. Id. Image signal S(l-1) is obtained through an exposure for a shorter period (one half of a frame) within frame 3 and is then output at the time of frame 4. Id. Therefore, the signal-processing unit "alternately and repeatedly outputs one image signal obtained through exposure in the long- exposure mode and two image signals obtained through exposure in the short-exposure mode." Id., Fig. 1. Although the claim encompasses other ways of alternately repeating the recited frames, this example, nevertheless, informs our analysis of whether the Examiner's claim interpretation is consistent with the Specification. 6 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 Considering the above-discussed example, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Hasu's image data A, B, and C includes frames that are "alternately repeated." See Reply Br. 12-13. Specifically, Hasu generates HDR images by compositing several types of image data. Hasu i-f 45. Each type has a different exposure time. Id. i-f 38. Image data A represents an image with the shortest exposure time, image data B represents an image with the standard exposure time, and image data C represents an image with the longest exposure time. Id. The Examiner finds that this image data contains the recited frames. Final Act. 5 (citing Hasu i-fi-137--40, Fig. 2). We agree. Like the above- discussed example (Spec. 9-10, Fig. 6), Hasu also teaches different images obtained with three different exposure times. Hasu i-fi-138--41. Furthermore, like the recited frames, Hasu's images are alternately repeated. Id., Fig. 2. In particular, Hasu's CCD has read-out lines LI, L2, and L3, shown below in Figure 2. Id. i-f 37. 7 Appeal2017-010322 Application I4/189,4I 7 L2 SCANNING OIRF-GTION ! ! '\ , \ ' \, 1 \ ' \ \ \ l ' I I I i I I I j Figure 2 illustrates how Hasu repeatedly scans in the scanning direction to read out the charged stored in each CCD IOI a. Id. i-f 38. The charges read out from lines LI, L2, and L3 correspond to image data A, B, and C. Id. Because Hasu repeatedly scans alternating read-out lines LI, L2, and L3, we agree that Hasu's obtaining is being "alternately repeated," as recited. Final Act. 3; Ans. I I. To be sure, Hasu explains that the system generates thirty "frames of HDR images." Hasu i-f 47. That is, Hasu's HDR image is a frame. Id.; accord Reply Br. I2. But this is not the only frame in Hasu. Notably, Hasu states that the types of image data (A, B, and C) are stored in "frame memory." Hasu i-f 54. Hasu's frame memory stores "an amount corresponding to one frame for each of the types." Id. (emphasis added). 8 Appeal2017-010322 Application 14/189,417 On this record, the weight of the evidence favors the Examiner's finding that Hasu teaches image data A, B, and C representing image frames. Final Act. 3. As discussed above, we further agree that these frames are "alternately repeated" like those recited in claim 1. Id.; Ans. 11. In summary, Appellant's arguments are unpersuasive because Hasu's HDR image is not the only repeated frame, and we are unconvinced that Hasu does not alternately obtain image data A, B, and C. See App. Br. 10- 12; Reply Br. 11-13. Because the Examiner did not rely on Oniki and Boo to teach the limitation at issue (see Final Act. 5-7), Appellant's arguments regarding Oniki and Boo are unpersuasive (App. Br. 11-13; Reply Br. 14). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1 as well as claims 2--4 and 6-8, which are not separately argued with particularity (see App. Br. 6, 14, 17; Reply Br. 15-19). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4 and 6-8. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 9