Ex Parte Gervautz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2018

13013535 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/013,535 01125/2011
15093 7590 04/02/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton/Qualcomm
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Gervautz
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.
102400 (1059663) 8928
EXAMINER
TRUONG, NGUYEN T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qcomins t@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GERV AUTZ and
ROY LAWRENCE ASHOK INIGO
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535 1
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JASON V. MORGAN, and
IRVINE. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3-10, 12-20, 22-28, and 30-35. Claims 2, 11, 21,
and 29 are canceled. App. Br. 20, 23, 25, and 28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535
Invention
Appellants disclose a mobile platform that "detects and tracks a three-
dimensional (3D) object using occlusions of a two-dimensional (2D)
surface." Abstract.
Representative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method comprising:
capturing with a camera and displaying a series of images of a two-
dimensional (2D) surface with a three-dimensional (3D) object;
detecting and tracking a position of the camera with respect to the 2D
surface;
assigning a region of the 2D surface as an area of interest;
detecting an occlusion of the area of interest in the images of the 2D
surface by the 3D object;
determining a shape of the 3D object; and
rendering and displaying a graphical object with reference to the
occlusion of the area of interest on the 2D surface, wherein the
graphical object is rendered with respect to the shape of the 3D object.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-10, 12-20, 22-28, and 30-352 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gun A. Lee et al., Occlusion
based interaction methods for tangible augmented reality environments,
Procs. of the 2004 ACM SIGGRAPH Int'l Conf. on Virtual Reality
Continuum and its Application in Industry, 419-26, June 16-18, 2004
("Lee"). Final Act. 4--7.
2 The Examiner lists claims 1-35 in the statement of the rejection (Final
Act. 4; Ans. 2), but claims 2, 11, 22, and 29 are canceled (App. Br. 20, 23,
25, and 28; see also Final Act. 1 ).
2
~pp~al2017-007206
pphcation 13/013 ,535
ANALYS
Claims 1 3 5 IS . ' ' -10, 12 14
In rejecting claim 1 h ' -20, 22, 24-28 30
fi d
. , t e Ex · ' ' and 32 35
m mg which m ammer fmds L , -arker a user. . ee s heuristi
the JD object . is pomting to discl c method for
. Fmal Act 4 ( .t. oses determz·n.
A
· c1 mg mg a sh
ppellants cont d 'e.g., Lee§ 3.2.3 .r 2) ape of
en the E . 11 •
Lee xammer err d b
merely discuss e ecause:
:arker out of a 2D e:i~ heuristic approach to when there g of markers the . determine wh· h
occlud d are other user is a t IC
sectione 3. 2 ;ontfrary to the Ex=~e':' that are cu~~~7e Pt?inting
th . . o Lee d er s statem . n wnally
A e 3D object" as recit~~s noht disclose "dete;~~ 1~ the rejection
pp. Br. 12. mt e claims. mmg a shape
0
f
Appellants' arg a uments are
pproach explicit! unpersuasive be y selects a "t cause Lee's h . .
marker set ,, L op-left marke f eunstlc
. ee 422 (e r rom amon
set in p· mphasis added) L . g the occluded
igure 5, which is reproduced bel~w·ee illustrates an occluded marker
.~~··
'"'·· .. ········•·
::.··: .. · .... ·· ... ·•· .••. · .. ·•·· .. ·•·· .. ·•·· .. ·•·· .. ·•·· ..•. ·· .. ·•· .•. ·· •. : ··.: •• ·· .. ·•· ..• :.:·>.. . i t ···· ..
~.
x~
3
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535
Lee Figure 5 depicts a grid of markers, seven markers wide and five
marks high. A pointing hand occludes eleven of the markers. A blob of
occluded markers, or an occluded marker set, is depicted as blue squares that
form a very low-resolution, two-dimensional representation of the pointing
hand.
Similarly, the Specification discloses that the "shape of the 3D object
may [] be determined based on the area of occlusion of the 2D surface.
Spec. i-f 16. The Specification also broadly describes a shape as including "a
square, rectangle, triangle, circle, etc. or any polygon covering a specific
area within the 2D image." Id. i-f 14. In light of these disclosures, and given
the lack of limiting language regarding what constitutes the claimed "shape
of the 3D object," a reasonably broad interpretation of determining a shape
of the 3D object encompasses even the low-resolution occluded market set
of Lee.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner further finds that Lee's disclosure
of a virtual button rendered near a user's finger (and that changes color when
the user touches it) discloses wherein the graphical object is rendered with
respect to the shape of the 3D object. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g., Lee Fig. 6);
see also Ans. 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "the shape or location
(or even the color) of the virtual button in Lee does not change based on the
shape of the 3D object (e.g., the user's finger)." App. Br. 14; see also Reply
Br. 7. However, Lee illustrates using the shape of the 3D object (i.e., an
occluded marker set) to determine which button among a plurality of buttons
is occluded to change, for example, the color of Lee's virtual button. In
particular, Lee discloses multiple heuristics, including "selecting the top-left
4
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535
[occluded] marker" and "calculating [the] principal axis of the occlusion
blob." Lee 422. In either case, the determined shape of the 3D object
(i.e., the occluded marker set) provides the basis for how the graphical object
(i.e., the virtual button) is rendered.
Appellants also contend that an "inspection of Fig. 6 of Lee (or other
figures, such as Fig. 7) shows that the virtual buttons are rendered over the
occluded marker and actually obscure the occluding object, i.e., the user's
finger or thumb, regardless of the position or shape of the occluding object."
App. Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 6 ("virtual buttons are rendered with respect
to the marker printed on the paper, and not with respect to the shape of the
3D object"). However, Appellants do not provide persuasive arguments or
evidence distinguishing the claimed rendering of a "graphical object ... with
respect to the shape of the 3D object" from Lee's changing the color of a
graphical object (e.g., a virtual button) when an occluded market set
indicates that a virtual button has been touched. The disputed recitation fails
to identify any particular rendering qualities, such as position or shape, that
must be affected by the shape of the 3D object. Nor does the Specification
limit the meaning of rendering with respect to so as to preclude changing
color (i.e., rendering in a different manner) based on a shape of the 3D
object (e.g., because the rendered graphical object has been touched).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Lee discloses
"determining a shape of the 3D object" and "wherein the graphical object is
rendered with respect to the shape of the 3D object," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 3, 5-10, 12, 14--20, 22, 24--28, 30, and 32-35, which
Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 16.
5
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535
Claims 4, 13, 23, and 31
Claim 4 reads as follows:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein determining the shape of the
3D object comprises determining a shape of an area of occlusion
of the 2D surface and a position of the camera with respect to the
2D surface and using the shape of the area of occlusion of the 2D
surface and the position of the camera with respect to the 2D
surface to calculate the shape of the 3D object.
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds Lee's estimation of invisible
markers relative to a camera based on the spatial relationships of markers
within a marker set discloses this claim language. Final Act. 5 (citing, e.g.,
Lee§ 3.1.2 if 1, Fig. 4).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "there is no
discussion of determining a shape of the 3D object in section 3.1.2 of Lee."
App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue Lee's "markers are not 'the 3D object'
as recited," but rather the "markers are equivalent to the areas of interest on
the 2D surface." Reply Br. 11. However, as discussed above, the
Examiner's findings show that Lee's occluded marker set discloses the
shape of the 3D object. The cited teachings in Lee, which are directed to
estimating where invisible (e.g., occluded) markers are located, is part of the
determination of an occluded marker set.
That is, Lee determines whether a "marker is within the view volume"
(Lee 421 ), thus distinguishing between a marker to include in the occluded
marker set (i.e., a marker invisible because it is occluded) and a marker that
is not being captured by the camera because it is outside the viewport. See
also Lee Fig. 4 (neither the red nor the blue markers are fully visible, but
only the blue marker would be part of the marker set because the camera
could not capture the red marker at all).
6
Appeal2017-007206
Application 13/013,535
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 4, and claims 13, 23, and 31, which Appellants argue are
patentable for similar reasons. App. Br. 19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-10, 12-20,
22-28, and 30-35.
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.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7