Ex Parte Bell et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14070429 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/070,429 11/01/2013
23623 7590 07/02/2019
AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP
200 Park A venue
Suite 300
Beachwood, OH 44122
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Bell
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.
MPORP105USE 7662
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 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):
hmckee@thepatentattomeys.com
rveri@thepatentattomeys.com
docket@thepatentattomeys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW BELL, DAVID GAUSEBECK, and
MICHAEL BEEBE
Appeal2018-007640
Application 14/070,429 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 2-16, 18-29, and 32-35. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Matterport, LLC as the real party
in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2018-007640
Application 14/070,429
RELATED APPEALS
Appellant identifies Appeal No. 2018-007317 (Application No.
14/070,427) and Appeal No. 2018-007323 (Application No. 14/070,428) as
related proceedings. We decide each of these related appeals in separate
decisions issued on this day.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to capturing and aligning three-dimensional
scenes. Spec., Title. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
2. A system, comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components;
a processor that executes at least the following computer
executable components stored in the memory:
a reception component configured to receive three-
dimensional data objects corresponding to different
perspectives of an object or environment as the three-
dimensional data objects are respectively captured in
association with a capture process that comprises
respectively capturing the three-dimensional data objects
over a period of time from a three-dimensional capture
device;
an alignment component configured to perform an
alignment process that comprises iteratively aligning the
three-dimensional data objects relative to one another and
a common three-dimensional coordinate space as the
three-dimensional data objects are respectively received,
resulting in a dynamically updated alignment between the
three-dimensional data objects;
a modeling component configured to generate and
dynamically update a three-dimensional representation of
the object or environment over the period of time based on
the dynamically updated alignment; and
2
Appeal2018-007640
Application 14/070,429
an interface component configured to generate a
graphical user interface that facilitates viewing the three-
dimensional representation as it is generated and
dynamically updated and controlling the capture process,
the graphical user interface comprising a primary display
area configured to display the three-dimensional
representation as it is generated and dynamically updated.
App. Br. 58 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ninan
Rosenstein
US 2012/0162366 Al Jun. 28, 2012
US 2012/0185094 Al Jul. 19, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 2-16, 18-29, and 32-35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ninan and Rosenstein. Final Act. 3-55.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Rosenstein teaches or suggests
an interface component configured to generate a graphical user
interface that facilitates viewing the three-dimensional
representation as it is generated and dynamically updated and
controlling the capture process, the graphical user interface
comprising a primary display area configured to display the
three-dimensional representation as it is generated and
dynamically updated,
as recited in claim 2, and recited similarly in claims 19 and 32?
3
Appeal2018-007640
Application 14/070,429
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner generally relies on Rosenstein as
teaching the limitations regarding the claimed alignment, modeling, and
display of the representation of a three-dimensional environment. With
respect to the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds Rosenstein teaches the
recited "interface component." Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Rosenstein Figs. 1-3,
17A, 17B, 27; ,r,r 146,180,190,192,196,232,234,238, and263). The
Examiner states that Rosenstein teaches the use of various displays,
including computing tablets mounted on mobile robots which have a
touchscreen, and that the robot may display a layout map on the touch
screen. Id. The Examiner further finds that Rosenstein teaches the use of a
3D occupancy map (shown in Figs. 17 A and 17B) which may be updated
based on image data received from an imaging sensor, and a layout map
(shown in Figs. 18A and 18B) which may be displayed on a touchpad
display. Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue the Examiner's analysis is flawed because the 3D
occupancy map described by Rosenstein is never displayed on a graphical
user interface, as it is used by the robot for autonomous navigation, and not
ever displayed on a display. App. Br. 27. Appellants further contend the
layout map, although displayed on an interface, is a two-dimensional
representation of an environment. Id. We agree.
The Examiner points to no three-dimensional representation in
Rosenstein that is ever displayed on a graphical user interface. The three-
dimensional occupancy map is only used for autonomous navigation. See
Rosenstein ,r 197. The layout map is a two-dimensional map, as shown by
Rosenstein's Figure 18A and 18B. Nor does the Examiner provide any
4
Appeal2018-007640
Application 14/070,429
explanation or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have had a reason to modify either (1) the three-dimensional occupancy map
to be displayed on a touchscreen, or (2) the displayed local map to be
displayed as a three-dimensional representation on the touchpad screen.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in determining that
Rosenstein teaches or suggests the argued limitation, and we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 2, nor of independent claims 19 and 32, which recite
similar limitations. The remaining claims depend from one of claims 2, 19,
and 32, and therefore stand with those claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-16, 18-29, and 32-
35.
REVERSED
5