Waymo LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 21, 2022

2021003277 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2022)

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. 16/105,069 08/20/2018 Carl Warren Craddock XSDV 3.0F-130 I 1065 146033 7590 01/21/2022 WAYMO LLC BOTOS CHURCHILL IP LAW 430 Mountain Ave Suite 401 New Providence, NJ 07974 EXAMINER ALAM, NAEEM TASLIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3668 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/21/2022 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): pto@bciplaw.com waymo@bciplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CARL WARREN CRADDOCK and ANDREAS WENDEL Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and WILLIAM A. CAPP, Administrative Patent Judges. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant, Waymo LLC,1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 13-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 “Appellant” refers to the applicant as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 and is the sole real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Specification The Specification discloses a method for assessing operation of two or more cameras for use in autonomous vehicles. Spec. ¶¶1-2 The Claims Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected. Final Act. 1. Claim 12 is canceled, and no other claims are pending. Id.; Appeal Br. 12-14. Claim 1 is the sole independent claim. It is illustrative and reproduced below. 1. A method for assessing operation of two cameras or more, the method comprising: receiving, by one or more processors, a first image captured by a first camera; receiving, by the one or more processors, a second image captured by a second camera, the first camera and the second camera having an overlapping field of view; generating, by the one or more processors, a first feature vector for the first image and a second feature vector for the second image; comparing, by the one or more processors, the first feature vector to the second feature vector to generate a similarity score; and comparing, by the one or more processors, the similarity score to a threshold value to assess the operation of the two cameras. Appeal Br. 12. Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 3 The Examiner’s Rejections The following rejections are before us: 1. claims 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kroeger2 (Final Act. 4); 2. claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Anderson3 (id. at 9); 3. claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Baba4 (id. at 10); 4. claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Davis5 (id.); 5. claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Wirth6 (id. at 11); 6. claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Shen7 (id. at 12); 7. claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Smolyanskiy8 (id. at 13); 8. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Javidnia9 (id. at 14); 9. claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Turner10 (id. at 15); and 10. claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Kroeger and Miyagawa11 (id. at 17). 2 US 2020/0005489 A1, published Jan. 2, 2020 (“Kroeger”). 3 US 2010/0094499 A1, published Apr. 15, 2010 (“Anderson”). 4 US 2019/0052792 A1, published Feb. 14, 2019 (“Baba”). 5 US 2019/0243376 A1, published Aug. 8, 2019 (“Davis”). 6 US 2019/0129444 A1, published May 2, 2019 (“Wirth”). 7 US 2019/0132572 A1, published May 2, 2019 (“Shen”). 8 US 2019/0295282 A1, published Sept. 26, 2019 (“Smolyanskiy”). 9 US 2018/0027224 A1, published Jan. 25, 2018 (“Javidnia”). 10 US 2019/0256054 A1, published Aug. 22, 2019 (“Turner”). 11 US 2015/0049345 A1, published Feb. 19, 2015 (“Miyagawa”). Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 4 DISCUSSION Rejection 1 Appellant argues against the rejection of all claims together. Appeal Br. 4-8. We choose claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The Examiner found that Kroeger discloses a method for assessing operation of two or more cameras having all of the features of claim 1. Final Act. 4-5 (citing Kroeger ¶¶20, 22, 26, 27, Fig. 1). Kroeger Figure 1 “depicts a pictorial flow diagram of an example process 100 for calibrating cameras disposed on an autonomous vehicle, in accordance with implementations of this disclosure. In this example, the process 100 uses epipolar geometry to correct for misalignment, e.g., physical misalignment, of cameras on the autonomous vehicle.” Kroeger ¶19. The process involves identifying point pairs for an overlapping portion of two images 110(1) and 110(2) obtained, respectively, from two cameras 106(1) and 106(2). Kroeger Fig. 1, ¶22. The Examiner found this to constitute “generating . . . a first feature vector for the first image and a second feature vector for the second image,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Kroeger ¶22). Appellant argues “the Examiner does not particularly point out in the FOA where Kroger discloses ‘feature vectors’ that are ‘generated’ for each of two different images (namely, the claimed first image and the claimed second image).” Appeal Br. 6. This argument is erroneous. The Final Action directs Appellant to Kroger’s Figure 1 and paragraph 22, and its disclosure and discussion of identifying point pairs from two images with overlapping content. Final Act. 5 (citing Kroeger ¶22, Fig. 1). Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 5 Appellant argues: At best, Kroger discloses identifying a first point 114a already existing in a first image 110(1) and a second point 114b already existing in a second image 110(2). While Kroger describes identifies existing points in two images that align with each other, the features of claim 1 include generating feature vectors for each of the images. Appeal Br. 6. However, the act of identifying feature vectors (point pairs) is sufficient to constitute “generating” feature vectors under the broadest reasonable interpretation of that term in view of the Specification. Appellant fails to develop its argument in any meaningful manner such as proposing a construction for “generating” that could exclude “identifying.” Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Appellant also argues: The Examiner appears to be setting forth a meaning of the term ‘vector’ which is unsupported by anything in the record, and conflicts with a meaning that would correspond to a definition as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Kroger’s identified points do not possess the characteristics of vectors. The present invention generates vectors for two different images, whereas Kroger merely identifies existing points of the images. Appeal Br. 6-7. But Appellant does not set forth, in the Appeal Brief, what Appellant considers to be the meaning of “vector,” let alone “feature vector.” Id. The Examiner responds that a person of “ordinary skill in the art would understand a vector to be an array or list of data,” cites three prior art references as evidence of such an understanding. Ans. 6. The first reference, US 2010/0104208 A1, published Apr. 29, 2010 (“Murata”), describes a step in which “blurred image data is converted from a matrix of a two-dimensional array into a vector type of one dimensional array.” Murata ¶51. The second reference, US 2003/0030744 A1, published Feb. 13, 2003 Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 6 (“Baer”), describes “collaps[ing] the two-dimensional image data array into a one-dimensional vector.” Baer ¶37. The third reference, US 2014/0343889 A1, published Nov. 20, 2014 (“Ben Shalom”), states that “[a] pressure distribution histogram may be obtained by creating a one dimensional array, or vector, of pertinent data relating to a pressure image feature.” Ben Shalom ¶176. Appellant replies that the evidence cited by Examiner is improper for purposes of supporting an anticipation rejection. Reply Br. 2. Appellant is mistaken. The Examiner is using these additional references, not to teach limitations missing from Kroeger, but rather to show that Kroeger’s point pairs would be understood to be feature vectors by persons of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant further replies that “a vector is a quantity having direction as well as magnitude in order to determine the position of one point in space relative to another (e.g., see https://www.britannica.com/science/vector- physics).” Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s belatedly-offered definition may very well apply in certain contexts. The dispute here, however, concerns what a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a feature vector to be in view of Appellant’s Specification. In citing Murata, Baer, and Ben Shalom, the Examiner has offered evidence from the same or similar fields showing that a vector can be an array or list of data. Appellant has not shown otherwise. Nor does the Specification support reaching a different construction. In that regard, the Specification describes a feature vector broadly as anything that “represents” features from an image. Spec. ¶20 (“These feature vectors would thus represent the features in the reduced images.”), ¶52 (same). Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 7 We have considered Appellant’s arguments but they do not apprise us of error. Accordingly, we affirm the anticipation rejection of claim 1, as well as that of claims 5-7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, and 20, which fall therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Rejection 6 This is a rejection of claim 10, which recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first feature vector and the second feature vector are generated to include only features corresponding to light emitting objects.” Final Act. 12; Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues against the rejection on the basis that, “like Kroeger, Shen is silent with regard to first and second feature vectors that are generated for first and second images.” Appeal Br. 9. As discussed above, however, Kroeger does disclose generating feature vectors. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 10 over Kroeger and Shen. Rejection 10 This is a rejection of claim 21, which recites: “The method of claim 1, wherein the first feature vector and the second feature vector are bright spots or high intensity areas.” Final Act. 17; Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues: the combination of Kroeger and Miyagawa cannot possibly teach that a first feature vector and the second feature vector are bright spots or high intensity areas, when neither of these references teach that the first and second feature vectors are generated for each of a first image and a second image, as recited by independent claim. Appeal Br. 10. As discussed above, however, Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s finding that Kroeger discloses generating a first feature vector for the first image and a second feature vector for the second Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 8 image. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 21 over Kroeger and Miyagawa. Rejections 2-5 and 7-9 Appellant groups these rejections together and argues against them merely on the basis that “Anderson, Baba, Davis, Wirth, Shen, Smolyanskiy, Javidnia and Turner, singly or in combination, fail to cure the abovementioned deficiencies of Kroeger.” Appeal Br. 11. Hence, Appellant’s argument is essentially the same as already considered and found unpersuasive in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the obviousness rejections of claims 2-4, 8, 11, 14, 17 and 18. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 102 Kroeger 1, 5-7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 2 103 Kroeger, Anderson 2 3 103 Kroeger, Baba 3 4 103 Kroeger, Davis 4 8 103 Kroeger, Wirth 8 10 103 Kroeger, Shen 10 11 103 Kroeger, Smolyanskiy 11 14 103 Kroeger, Javidnia 14 17, 18 103 Kroeger, Turner 17, 18 21 103 Kroeger, Miyagawa 21 Overall Outcome 1-11, 13- 21 Appeal 2021-003277 Application 16/105,069 9 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