Josh BradleyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 16, 20212020000586 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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. 13/622,948 09/19/2012 Josh Bradley 026.P002 2805 65638 7590 06/16/2021 Columbia IP Law 4957 Lakemont Blvd. SE C-4165 Bellevue, WA 98006 EXAMINER LUU, CUONG V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2129 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2021 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): ROBERT.CHANG@COLUMBIAIPLAW.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOSH BRADLEY ____________________ Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is the inventor, Josh Bradley. (Appeal Br. 4.) 2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed September 19, 2012, Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed January 26, 2017, Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed February 26, 2018, and Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 16, 2018. Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 2 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a method and apparatus “for determining one or more dimensions of a space and/or object and visualizing usage of space” as well as “visualizing objects within [the] space” to enable a visual representation of [the] space including some objects that may not be currently present in the space . . . [to] be generated. For example, a visual representation of a room may be generated. As part of the representation, furniture (e.g., a couch, or the like) that may not be shown in the room, may be shown in the visual representation as being in the room. (Spec. ¶ 3; Abstr.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space, the reference object providing a dimensional reference and having a predetermined dimension; accessing a database to facilitate recognition of the reference object; once recognized, obtaining the predetermined dimension of the reference object from the database; determining one or more dimensions of the reference object relative to a view point of the reference object within the space, the view point being a perspective view of the reference object; determining one or more dimensions of the space based at least in part on the determined one or more dimensions of the reference object relative to the view point of the reference object within the space; receiving a first image portraying a first object; determining one or more dimensions of the first object; and Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 3 providing an indication of whether the first object will fit within the space based at least in part on the determined one or more dimensions of the space and the determined one or more dimensions of the first object, the indication including a graphical representation of a perspective view of the first object within the space and the graphical representation being generated on a display of a handheld device. (Appeal Br. 24–30 (Claims App.).) REJECTIONS & REFERENCES Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Abernethy et al. (US 2009/0010548 A1, published January 8, 2009) (“Abernethy”) and Dujmich (US 2006/0012611 A1, published January 19, 2006) (“Dujmich”). (Final Act. 6–12.) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Abernethy, Dujmich, and Sakai et al. (US 2006/0106757 A1, published May 18, 2006) (“Sakai”). (Final Act. 12–13.) Claims 7–9 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Abernethy, Dujmich, and Bonner et al. (US 7,137,556 B1, issued Nov. 21, 2006) (“Bonner”). (Final Act. 13–15.) ANALYSIS Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985–86 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 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), (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 4 (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. With respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, Appellant argues Abernethy does not teach or suggest various limitations of claim 1, including “detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space,” “accessing a database to facilitate recognition of the reference object,” “once recognized, obtaining the predetermined dimension of the reference object from the database,” “determining one or more dimensions of the reference object relative to a view point of the reference object within the space, the view point being a perspective view of the reference object,” and “providing an indication . . . including a graphical representation of a perspective view of the first object within the space and the graphical representation being generated on a display of a handheld device.” (Appeal Br. 12–14.) In particular, Appellant argues claim 1 is “directed towards an intelligent real-time imaging of an area, where the imaged area may be used to make various dimensional determinations,” while Abernathy[sic]3 discloses using photographs [(e.g., photographic images of a space)], and accordingly, Abernathy does not teach or suggest using a computer system (e.g., mobile device disclosed in the present application) to take real-time and interactive determinations of spatial relationships as claimed in the present application. As disclosed in the present application, 3 Appellant generally misnames the Abernethy reference throughout the Brief as Abernathy. Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 5 a user may take their handheld device (e.g., smartphone, digital imaging device, etc.) to determine spatial relationships with respect to an object that the user may have placed in the imaging space. Taking a photograph and analyzing the photograph, as disclosed in Abernathy, would be not advantageous (e.g., not so cool) as disclosed in the present disclosure. . . . Accordingly, Abernathy does not teach or suggest present claimed subject matter directed towards intelligent space analysis with minimal user interaction as claimed in independent claim 1. (Id. at 13–14.) Appellant also argues, in contrast to claim 1 which “may be considered to include intelligent spatial determinations based, at least in part, on reference objects and recognition of reference objects from a database,” Dujmich “requires input of at least one dimension” and does not teach or suggest “[claim 1’s] utilization of a database or intelligent spatial determinations.” (Id. at 16.) Appellant further argues the Examiner’s combination of Abernethy and Dujmich is deficient because “the disclosure of Dujmich, which is directed towards furniture, would not be combined with the disclosure of Abernethy, which is directed towards computer components.” (Id. at 15.) We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments, and agree with the Examiner that the asserted combination of Abernethy and Dujmich teaches the steps of the computer-implemented method recited in claim 1. (See Final Act. 6–8; Ans. 3–6.) At the outset, we note Appellant has submitted arguments unsupported by corresponding language in claim 1. (Ans. 3–4.) For example, claim 1 does not recite (or specify characteristics of an) “intelligent real-time imaging” of a space, “intelligent space analysis with minimal user interaction,” or “interactive determinations of spatial relationships” performed on a “mobile device” or “handheld device,” as Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 6 Appellant argues. (See Appeal Br. 13–14, 16 (emphases added).) The “handheld device” referenced in the last line of claim 1 is used to display the claimed graphical representation, but is not recited as being the device performing the detecting, accessing, determining, and indication-providing steps of the claim. Similar to claim 1, the “handheld device” referenced at the end of independent claims 11 and 16 is used to display the claimed graphical representation, but is not identified as being the earlier-claimed “apparatus,” “processor,” or “computer” performing the detecting, accessing, determining, and indication-providing operations recited therein. As to Appellant’s arguments that Abernethy and Dujmich do not teach or suggest the claimed “detecting,” “accessing,” and “obtaining the predetermined dimension” (see Appeal Br. 12, 14, 16), Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Abernethy’s “intelligent dimension data gathering” teaches and suggests these steps. (See Ans. 4 (citing Abernethy ¶¶ 27, 37, 41, 43–44).) We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Abernethy detects a reference object within an imaged space, as required by claim 1. (Ans. 4; see Abernethy ¶¶ 36–37 (“the photographic image of the current system configuration may be supplemented by manual measurements and/or intelligent dimension data gathering. . . . Intelligent dimension data gathering involves identifying or naming one or more of the individual components in the existing computer system by a product identifier”), 41 (“[an] information source may include images of each hardware component for comparison to existing components in the photographic image. In this manner, the images can be compared in order to identify one or more of the existing components” and “[o]nce an existing component is specifically identified, a three dimensional model or Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 7 other relevant information about the existing component can be accessed”), 43–44 (providing that “standard dimension objects, such as a standard dimension pantry door” or “a yard stick or other standard dimension item . . . positioned in the space during the taking of the photographic image,” or “connectors hav[ing] standardized dimensions” can be “easily identified” in the photographic image to “serve as a scale for measuring other existing components in the same photographic image”).) Abernethy also accesses a database (e.g., an “information source to lookup the known dimensions of that component [of the existing computer system]” or a “hardware component information source,” see Abernethy ¶¶ 37, 41) to facilitate recognition of the reference object (e.g., connector of standardized dimensions in a computer system, standard dimension object in a kitchen, or yard stick, see id. ¶¶ 37, 41, 43–44) and obtain a predetermined dimension of the reference object from the database (e.g., using an “information source to lookup the known dimensions of that component,” see id. ¶¶ 37, 43–44), as recited in claim 1. (Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 7.) Appellant reproduces portions from Abernethy and portions from claim 1, and asserts the claimed “accessing” and “obtaining the predetermined dimension” (as well as other claim limitations, see Appeal Br. 10, 12–14) are not found in the reference, without providing an explanation as to why that is the case (e.g., why the Examiner’s cited portions of Abernethy, see Ans. 3–5, would be deficient). Appellant also repeats claim language arguing that various recited limitations are not found in Dujmich (see Appeal Br. 10, 15), without providing an explanation as to why the Examiner’s cited portions of Dujmich (see Ans. 5–6 and Final Act. 7–8) would be deficient. Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 8 Appellant also submits an argument that Abernethy is deficient with respect to claim 1 because “Abernathy discloses using photographs, and accordingly, Abernathy does not teach or suggest using a computer system (e.g., mobile device disclosed in the present application) to take real-time and interactive determinations of spatial relationships,” and “[t]aking a photograph and analyzing the photograph, as disclosed in Abernathy, would be not advantageous (e.g., not so cool) as disclosed in the present disclosure.” (See Appeal Br. 13–14.) This argument is unpersuasive because the language of claim 1 is broader than the language argued by Appellant. (Ans. 3–4.) As discussed supra, claim 1 does not recite or otherwise require a “mobile device . . . to take real-time and interactive determinations of spatial relationships” (as Appellant argues). In addition, claim 1’s “detecting, via a camera, a reference object within a space” does not preclude detection of reference objects in digital images taken by digital cameras, as described in Abernethy. (Ans. 4 (citing Abernethy ¶ 27); see Abernethy ¶ 27 (“The photographic image is preferably a digital image, such as a picture taken with a typical digital camera. . . . Since almost any digital image format is suitable, the format is preferably a format that is common to digital cameras and associated digital photography software applications”).) Appellant further generally contends Abernethy and Dujmich are non- analogous to one another and cannot logically be combined. (Appeal Br. 15.) We agree with the Examiner that, “Abernethy and Dujmich are analogous art because they are in the field of searching for matched components or objects based on a feature or attribute,” more particularly by searching for matched furniture based on features of a space (see Abernethy ¶ 43, Dujmich ¶¶ 4, 19)—which matches Appellant’s field of endeavor. Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 9 (Final Act. 8; Ans. 6.) As such, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that Abernethy and Dujmich cannot be combined. (See Appeal Br. 15.) As Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1, independent claims 11 and 16 argued for the same reasons, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12–14, and 17–20, argued for their dependency. (See Appeal Br. 16.) With respect to dependent claims 4, 7–9, and 15, Appellant provides substantially the same arguments as for claims 1 and 11, and additionally argues that Sakai and Bonner (i) do not cure the alleged deficiencies of Abernethy and Dujmich, and (ii) are non-analogous to Abernethy and Dujmich and cannot logically be combined with the primary references. (Appeal Br. 17–22.) Because we find the combination of Abernethy and Dujmich is not deficient with respect to claims 1 and 11, Sakai and Bonner are not needed to cover any deficiency in the base combination. We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “Dujmich, which is directed towards furniture, and Abernathy, which is directed towards discrete computer components, would not be combined with the disclosure of Sakai, which is directed towards sheet metal” and “with the disclosure of Bonner, which is directed towards parcel imaging on a conveyor belt.” (See Appeal Br. 19, 21–22.) Appellant’s statements that “Sakai . . . is directed towards sheet metal” and “Bonner . . . is directed towards parcel imaging on a conveyor belt” misrepresent the disclosures and the focus of Sakai and Bonner. (See Sakai Abstr.; Bonner Abstr.; Final Act. 13, 14). We agree with the Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 10 Examiner that Abernethy, Dujmich, Sakai, and Bonner are “analogous art because they are in the field of searching for matched components based on a feature or attribute,” whereby “Sakai’s teachings would have helped define relationship between features to search for a match based on one or more features” and “Bonner’s teachings would have provided efficient access to the increasing volume of information available about an object.” (Final Act. 13–14 (citing Sakai ¶¶ 191, 196, 203, 208; Bonner 2:3–5, 9:19–39, 12:48– 60).) Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4, 7–9, and 15. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 4, 7–9, and 15. DECISION SUMMARY The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, 16–20 103(a) Abernethy, Dujmich 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, 16–20 4 103(a) Abernethy, Dujmich, Sakai 4 7–9, 15 103(a) Abernethy, Dujmich, Bonner 7–9, 15 Overall Outcome 1–20 Appeal 2020-000586 Application 13/622,948 11 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