Ex Parte Hamersma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2018

14007654 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/007,654 09/26/2013 I vo Willem Josef Hamers ma
24737 7590 10/02/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00355WOUS 2402
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KATHLEENV
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IVO WILLEM JOSEF HAMERSMA, JOHAN JULIANA DRIES,
MARKUS JOHANNES HARMEN DEN HARTOG,
YANNICK MORVAN, and
MARINUS JACOBU GERARDUS VAN DE MOLENGRAFT 1
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-12. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
SPECIFICATION
The Specification relates to a medical safety-system for dynamic 3D
healthcare environments, a medical examination system with motorized
equipment, an image acquisition arrangement, a method for providing safe
movements in dynamic 3D healthcare environments, a computer program
element, and a computer readable medium. Spec. 1.
In dynamic 3D healthcare environments, moving parts of a medical
examination system need to avoid colliding with other parts to prevent
damage. Spec. 1. Collision sensors are used for that purpose. Id. The
Specification indicates, however, that collision sensors often limit the
possible movement speed for dynamic 3D healthcare environments or
require cumbersome adaption of a collision prevention system. Id. The
Specification indicates that it solves these problems. Id.
CLAIMED INVENTION
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A medical safety-system for dynamic 3D healthcare
environments, comprising:
a detection system;
a processing unit; and
an interface unit;
wherein the detection system comprises at least one
sensor adapted to provide depth information of a free space of
at least a part of an observed scene;
wherein the processing unit comprises a correlation unit
adapted to assign the depth information;
wherein the processing unit comprises a generation unit
adapted to generate a 3 D free space model comprising spatial or
volumetric data defining a space with the space consisting of
2
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
free space which is free of objects and free of structures and
space where the depth information indicates that it is uncertain
that the space is free of objects is excluded such that only the
free space which can be used for movement is defined in the 3D
free space model; and
wherein the interface unit is adapted to provide the 3D
free space model.
Siczek
Terasaki
Rastegar
Nakajima
Keams
Izadi
REFERENCES
us 5,050,204
us 5,513,299
US 2008/0033410 Al
US 2010/0185327 Al
US 2012/0182392 Al
US 2012/0194517 Al
REJECTIONS
Sep. 17, 1991
Apr. 30, 1996
Feb. 7,2008
July 22, 2010
July 19, 2012
Aug.2,2012
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar, Keams, and Nakajima.
Final Act. 3.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Rastegar, Keams, Nakajima, and Izadi. Final Act. 10.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Rastegar, Keams, Nakajima, and Siczek. Final Act. 12.
Claims 8, 10, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Keams and Nakajima. Final Act. 13.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Keams, Nakajima, and Rastegar. Final Act. 16.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Keams, Nakajima, and Terasaki. Final Act. 17.
3
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that the cited prior art, including Rastegar, Keams,
and Nakajima, does not teach or suggest the limitation of "wherein the
processing unit comprises a generation unit adapted to generate a 3D free
space model comprising spatial or volumetric data defining a space with the
space consisting of free space which is free of objects and free of structures
and space where the depth information indicates that it is uncertain that the
space is free of objects is excluded such that only the free space which can
be used for movement is defined in the 3D free space model." App. Br. 8,
10. In particular, Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or
suggest "space where the depth information indicates that it is uncertain that
the space is free of objects is excluded." Id.
The Specification defines the term "3D free space model" as "spatial
or volumetric data defining a space which is free of objects and structures
and which can thus be used for movement, for example of a component or
an element." Spec. 2. The portion of the Specification that is cited as
supporting the disputed limitation2 reads:
In case of a situation in which precise information, i.e.
depth information is not available in a sufficient manner, i.e.
with a sufficiently high probability, it is possible to simply
neglect this space and to positively define the free space only
for those area in which depth information positively defines that
free space is actually available. Thus, in case of uncertainness,
it is not necessary to make any assumptions, but rather to leave
out this particular space to be on the safe side.
In case of using an infrared light for time-of-flight
cameras, the system operates independently of light conditions.
2 Spec. 10, lines 23-32. App. Br. 4.
4
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
Further, since time-of-flight cameras are capable of capturing
depth of at least 25 frames per second, it is possible to provide
real-time 3D reconstruction.
Spec. 10.
The Examiner finds Keams and Nakajima teach or suggest "space
where the depth information indicates that it is uncertain that the space is
free of objects is excluded." Final Act. 6. The Examiner finds Keams
teaches classifying perceptual space into obstacles, unknown, and free space.
Ans. 4, citing Keams ,r,r 208-211. Further, the Examiner finds that
Nakajima teaches or suggests removing unrecognized environment, and then
creating a composite image having no unrecognized space. Ans. 5, citing
Nakajima ,r,r 4--12. In other words, the Examiner finds that Nakajima
teaches excluding that unrecognized space when determining an area for a
moving path of a robot. Id. at 4. Combined, the Examiner finds these
disclosures teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
Appellants argue that the Nakajima only deals with the issue of
whether a view is obstructed and that Nakajima does not teach or suggest a
3D free space model. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 8, 11. Appellants further
argue that Nakajima does not even exclude unknown portions of its image
due to an obstruction. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 8. According to Appellants,
even the obstructed portions of the image are included in Nakajima. App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 8.
We agree with the Examiner that Keams and Nakajima at least
suggest the disputed limitation. For example, the field of the claimed
invention relates to dynamic 3D healthcare environments, where the
"Background of the Invention" section of the Specification acknowledges, it
is known that collisions of moving parts must be avoided. Spec. 1. Keams
5
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
teaches classifying perceptual space into obstacles, unknown, and free space.
Keams ,r 208. As recognized by the Examiner, Keams also teaches a 3D
space model. Ans. 6-7; Keams ,r,r 208-211. Similarly, Nakajima also
suggests a 3D space model. Ans. 6; Nakajima ,r 12 ("The aforesaid robot
may compute the moving course of its body trunk or connected member by
utilizing the composite image ... ). Nakajima teaches that uncertain or
obstructed portions of the image produced by its main camera 105 should be
discarded. Nakajima ,r,r 4--12. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Keams and Nakajima at least suggest the disputed limitation.
Appellants argue that because Nakajima replaces the excluded part of
an image from its main camera 105 with portions of the image taken by its
arm side camera 106, Nakajima does not actually exclude any obstructed
space and, therefore, the cited prior art does not render claim 1 obvious.
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 8. We are not persuaded by this argument for two
reasons. First, as the Examiner notes, claim 1 does not preclude the system
from later filling in the space that was excluded with other data. Advisory
Act. 2. As long as the exclusion occurs, claim 1 is satisfied. Second, even if
there were a limitation to not subsequently fill in space that was excluded,
we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings would at least
suggest excluding the obstructed data without any subsequent filling in.
Ans. 4--5. In other words, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know that
there are two options that could be pursued after excluded that space leaving
it without any replacement or replacing it. Both options would be suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
6
Appeal2018-003860
Application 14/007,654
Claims 2-12
Appellants present the same arguments for claims 2-12 as for claim 1.
App. Br. 8-17. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 2-12.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-12.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7