13127542 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

Ex Parte Karkowski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 30, 2018

13127542 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/127,542 06/27/2011 23456 7590 12/04/2018 PATTERSON Intellectual Property Law, P.C. 1600 DIVISION STREET, SUITE 500 NASHVILLE, TN 37203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Ireneusz Piotr Karkowski 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. 18948-006009 2955 EXAMINER TERRELL, EMILY C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2018 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): docket@IPLA WGROUP.COM ckr@iplawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte IRENEUSZ PIOTR KARKOWSKI Appeal 2018-003836 1 Application 13/127,542 Technology Center 2600 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Nederlandse Organisatie Voor Toegepast-Natuurwetenschappelijk Onderzoek TNO is identified as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal 2018-003836 Application 13/127,542 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's disclosure relates to a "system for tracking a presence of persons in a building" that includes "generating a presence state vector indicating a presence probability value of a person in [a] room." Abstract. Claims 1, 6, and 15 are independent; claim 1 is reproduced below for reference: 1. A system for tracking a presence of persons in a building, comprising: - a sensor network including: - a motion sensor for sensing a person's motion in a room of the building, - a localization sensor comprising an occupancy sensor for sensing if a person is occupying a chair or bed present at a particular location in the room, and - a computer system that is communicatively connected to the sensor network, wherein the computer system further includes a processor that is configured to generate a presence state vector on the basis of sensor information provided by the motion sensor and the occupancy sensor, and information of interconnection structures between adjacent rooms in a floor plan of the building, and wherein a variable of the presence state vector represents a presence probability value of a person in the room and is arranged to evolve over time. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tran (US 7,733,224 B2; June 8, 2010) and Krumm (US 6,839,027 B2; Jan. 4, 2005). Final Act. 3. 2 2 Although the heading of the rejection does not indicate claim 21 is rejected (see Final Act. 3), claim 21 is included in the body of the rejection. See Final Act 16-17. Thus we consider this claim as rejected and before us. 2 Appeal 2018-003836 Application 13/127,542 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments. Any arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See Br. 12, 14, 18. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. Â§4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the Examiner erred; we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 is in error, because "Tran fails to disclose or suggest both (i) that a presence state vector is based on the occupancy sensor, and (ii) that a presence state vector is based on information of interconnection structures between adjacent rooms in a floor plan of a building." Br. 8. Appellant contends "Krumm fails to disclose or suggest any occupancy sensor" (Br. 12) and "a variable in the presence state vector representing a presence probability value of a person in the room is also not disclosed in Krumm." Br. 13. Appellant further contends the combination of Tran and Krumm is "grounded in impermissible hindsight reasoning" (Br. 15) and [b ]ecause Krumm does not disclose any of the limitations that distinguish the independent claims of the instant application from Tran, the skilled artisan would not seek to combine the asserted teachings of Krumm with the asserted teachings of Tran to arrive at the claimed invention. Br. 16. We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner correctly finds that Tran's system may include many types of presence sensors, including "a 3 Appeal 2018-003836 Application 13/127,542 chair sitting sensor, a sofa sitting sensor, a bed sensor, [and] a weight sensor." Ans. 10, quoting Tran 1:61---62; see also Ans. 12-13, quoting Tran 11 :7-50. The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that Tran further teaches use of information regarding building interconnection structures: [Tran discloses] a single motion sensor 8C can be placed between the bed of the user and the bathroom. In a case where only a door sensor 8D is provided within the system, the door sensor 8D can be placed on the door of the bathroom. Such basic configuration can determine whether the user being monitored has gotten out of bed or has gone to the bathroom after a predetermined time. Ans. 16, quoting Tran 9:46-52 (emphasis omitted). Appellant does not challenge the Examiner's findings as no Reply Brief was filed. Appellant's argument that Krumm has no occupancy sensor is unpersuasive, because as indicated above, the Examiner finds the occupancy sensor is disclosed in Tran. Further, Appellant fails to show that Krumm's estimate of a "most probable location" (Br. 13) does not suggest the claimed "presence probability value," as we agree with the Examiner that one skilled in the art would seek to quantify such an estimate in the same manner that Krumm quantifies probability transitions. See Ans. 13, citing Krumm Section 4.2.2.1 "Graph and Transition Probabilities," particularly Krumm 20:54---66. We find the Examiner's analysis to be reasonable. See Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ("[O]bviousness does not require the prior art to reach expressly each limitation exactly. Rather, obviousness may render a claimed invention 4 Appeal 2018-003836 Application 13/127,542 invalid where the record contains a suggestion or motivation to modify the prior art teaching to obtain the claimed invention."). 3 Appellant's arguments regarding the inapplicability of combining Tran with Krumm also are not persuasive. Appellant supplies no technical reasoning or factual basis for the assertion of "impermissible hindsight reasoning" used by the Examiner. Any judgment on obviousness is ... necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Further, Appellant's argument that "Krumm does not disclose any of the limitations that distinguish the independent claims of the instant application from Tran" does not address the Examiner's finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Tran with Krumm in order to "conveniently and efficiently enforce expectations of transitions between locations, for the health and wellbeing of the individuals." Final Act. 6. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we affirm the rejection of independent claims 1, 6 and 15, as well as claims 2-5, 7-14, and 16-21 not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 7-18. 3 Separately, we note that despite Appellant's assertion that the "presence probability value of a person in the room is [] not disclosed in Krumm" (Br. 13, emphasis added), Krumm teaches the "single best estimate of the current node" could "be used for reporting the probability of being at each node" (Krumm 24:43--45; see also Krumm 24:34--57), which corresponds to the claimed "presence probability value." 5 Appeal 2018-003836 Application 13/127,542 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-21 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 6