Ex Parte Porwal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2017

13901895 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2017)

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.
30566.49 l-US-Ul 5026
EXAMINER
AYAD, MARIA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/901,895 05/24/2013
55895 7590 04/12/2017
GATES & COOPER LLP - Autodesk
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045
Gunjan Porwal
04/12/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUNJAN PORWAL1
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—9, 11—21, 23, and 24.3 We have jurisdiction
over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Autodesk,
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
2 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed July 5, 2016) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed December 22, 2015),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 5, 2016) and the Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 28, 2015).
3 Claims 10 and 22 were cancelled previously.
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to viewing and manipulating
stereoscopic 3D images in a graphical user interface. Spec. 2, 9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 11.
1. A computer-implemented method for interacting with a
virtual stereoscopic object, comprising:
placing a set of sensors adjacent to a stereoscopic viewing
area;
projecting a stereoscopic object in the stereoscopic
viewing area;
defining an interaction level index for the stereoscopic
object, wherein the interaction level index determines a level of
interactivity between the stereoscopic object and a user’s body
part;
tracking the user’s body part using the set of sensors;
determining a gesture of the user’s body part based on the
tracking; and
based on the gesture, actively and dynamically applying
an interaction event to the stereoscopic object.
11. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein
the interaction level index defines a virtual viscosity of the
stereoscopic object with respect to the user’s body part.
2
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
REFERENCES
Kumar et al.
Pikkujamsa et al.
Underkoffler et al.
Marti et al.
Icho et al.
Wong
US 6,222,465 B1 Apr. 24, 2001
US 2009/0201270 Al Aug. 13, 2009
US 2010/0060570 Al Mar. 11, 2010
US 2010/0128112 Al May 27, 2010
US 2012/0272171 Al Oct. 25, 2012
US 8,854,282 B1 Oct. 7, 2014
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 11, 13, 14, 16—18, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho. Final
Act. 1-11.
Claims 3 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Wong. Final Act. 11—12.
Claims 7—9 and 19—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Marti. Final Act. 12—17.
Claims 12 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Pikkujamsa. Final
Act. 17-19.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6,
11, 13, 14, 16—18, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the
combination of Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho teaches or suggests “defining
an interaction level index for the stereoscopic object, wherein the interaction
level index determines a level of interactivity between the stereoscopic
object and a user’s body part,” as per claims 1,2, 4—6, 13, 14, and 16—18;
and whether the combination of Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho teaches or
ISSUES
3
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
suggests “the interaction level index defines a virtual viscosity of the
stereoscopic object with respect to the user’s body part,” as per claims 11
and 23.
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 7 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, Icho, and Marti teaches “determining when the user’s body part
comes within a range of interaction with the projected stereoscopic object.”
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, Icho, and Marti teaches that “the position of the stereoscopic object
is adjusted such that the user’s body part never breaches the object.”
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) turns on whether the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, Icho, and Pikkujamsa teaches that “the interaction level index
defines a type of material of the stereoscopic object.”
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 11, 13, 14, 16—18, and 23 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16-18
Appellant argues that Icho fails to disclose an interaction level index
to determine a level of interactivity between an object and a user’s body.
App. Br. 5—9; Reply Br. 2—3. Specifically, Appellant argues that although
Icho discloses two objects (desired and related content items or icons on a
touchscreen) with the user dragging one of the objects with a finger, the
interaction is between the two objects and not between the user and the
4
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
object. App. Br. 6; see Reply Br. 2. Further, Appellant argues that Icho
does not teach an “interaction index of level that directly influences how the
user’s body part interacts with the first object or the second object.” App.
Br. 8 ; see Reply Br. 3. Consequently, Appellant contends that the
combination of Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho fails to teach or suggest an
interaction level index to determine a level of interactivity between a
stereoscopic object and a user’s body. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Claim 1 recites
“defining an interaction level index . . . [that] determines a level of
interactivity between the stereoscopic object and a user’s body part.” The
Examiner relies on the combination of Underkoffler and Icho to teach this
limitation. Final Act. 3^4. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Underkoffler teaches a method for interacting with a stereoscopic object and
finds that Icho teaches a user’s touch gesture with a finger in direct contact
with a desired object, which is dragged by the user and a related object,
which follows the desired object. Ans. 4 (citing to Icho ^fl[ 6, 72). The
Examiner further finds that the interactivity between the dragged object and
the related object, in Icho, depends on the speed of the drag performed by
the user’s finger, and further emphasizes an interaction level between the
objects and the user’s finger. Id. As such, the Examiner concludes that Icho
teaches defining an interaction level index that determines a level of
5
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
interactivity (speed of drag) between an object (desired object) and a user’s
body part (finger). Final Act. 4; Ans. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument because, as found by
the Examiner (Ans. 3—4), Icho expressly teaches that
Using a suitable touch gesture, or pointing device selection
operation, the user can select and move a desired item of content.
In so doing, other related items of content move as if attracted to
the selected content by an invisible attractive force (e.g., invisible
spring force, invisible gravitational force, or other kind of force).
Thus by dragging a selected content item, the items of related
content will follow, exhibiting kinematic motion as if they were
physical objects acted upon by the invisible attractive force,
where the degree of relatedness defines the strength of that force.
[T]he related content items follow the target content in a more
complex kinematic relationship whereby the overall number of
related items attracted during motion of the target content can be
controlled by how quickly the user moves the target content.
Icho H 6, 72. The user’s interaction (speed of drag) with the desired object
has a direct effect on, or interaction with, the desired content and an indirect
effect on the related content which is attracted to the desired content. See
Ans. 4; Icho 172. Appellant argues that Icho discloses the interaction
between two objects, but the rejection is predicated on a different finding by
the Examiner — that the user’s finger (body part) is interacting with the
desired object by touching and dragging it. App. Br. 6. Although Icho
teaches that there is interaction between the two objects, there is also
interaction between the user and objects.
Also, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the speed of the
user’s drag of the object will define a level of interactivity between the user
and the object, where the change in the user’s speed of drag has a direct
6
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
effect on the speed of the desired object and an indirect effect on the speed
of the related object. See Ans. 4. That is, there is an interaction level index
based on the user’s speed of drag with the objects that determines the level
of interactivity between the objects and the user’s body part. As such, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of references teaches or
suggests “defining an interaction level index . . . [that] determines a level of
interactivity between the stereoscopic object and a user’s body part.”
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claim
13 recites similar features to claim 1. Claims 2 and 4—6 depend from claim
1, and claims 14 and 16—18 depend from claim 13. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 14, and 16-18.
Claims 11 and 23
Appellant further argues that the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, and Icho fails to teach that “the interaction level index defines a
virtual viscosity of the stereoscopic object with respect to the user’s body
part,” as recited by claims 11 and 23. App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellant specifically argues that Icho does not teach or suggest that “an
object can have a viscosity.” App. Br. 10. Appellant argues that Icho
discloses “another way to view the velocity sensitive component. . . moving
through a viscous medium,” but fails to disclose “a viscosity of the object
itself.” App. Br. 9 (citing Icho 170); Reply Br. 4. Appellant further argues
although the Examiner interprets “virtual viscosity” as “affect[ing] the
motion of the manipulated object based on the motion of the user’s body
part,” the specification illustrates the “virtual viscosity” as “the type of
material (e.g. solid, liquid, or gas) of the object itself.” Reply Br. 4 (quoting
Spec. 14).
7
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
We agree with Appellant. During examination of a patent application,
pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction consistent
with the specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1369, (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Examiner finds that the “virtual viscosity” of
the object is with respect to the user’s body part, such as the motion of the
object dragged by the user. Ans. 5. We disagree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of “virtual viscosity” and the Examiner’s interpretation of
claims 11 and 23 such that the “virtual viscosity” is based on the user’s body
part. The Specification provides that “the index level may specify a
different matter state or the viscosity” or the virtual object. Spec. | 8. The
Specification further provides that the index level “may represent a viscosity
level such that the user’s hand can pass through the virtual object as if the
virtual object is water/smoke/fire or thicker similar to jelly or oil.” Id. As
such, the Specification makes clear that the “virtual viscosity” is of the
“virtual object” itself, and represents “a different matter state,” such as
“solid, liquid, or gas.” See id. Accordingly, the Examiner’s interpretation of
“virtual viscosity” is unreasonably broad in light of the specification.
As found by the Examiner, Icho teaches that “[t]he effect of the
velocity-sensitive component is to make the movement of individual content
items somewhat sluggish” and “[a]n alternate way of expressing the
relationship would be to think of the items of content as moving through a
viscous medium.” Icho 170; see Final Act. 6, 10-11. That is, Icho
expressly discloses that the medium is “viscous.” See id. However, as
discussed above, claims 11 and 23 require that the “interaction level index
defines a virtual viscosity of the stereoscopic object,” not the medium. As
such, the combination of references do not teach that “the interaction level
8
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
index defines a virtual viscosity of the stereoscopic object with respect to the
user’s body part,” as recited by claims 11 and 23. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 23.
Claims 3 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Wong
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for the patentability of
dependent claims 3 and 15, and, therefore, we sustain the rejections of
claims 3 and 15 for the reasons indicated above with respect to claims 1 and
13.
Claims 7—9 and 19—21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Marti
Appellant argues that Marti fails to disclose a “range of interaction”
between the object and the user’s body part, as recited by dependent claims
7 and 19. App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellant argues that
although Marti discloses the ability to detect collision or contact between an
object and a user’s hand, there is nothing “directed towards whether the
user’s body part is within a range of interaction.” App. Br. 12—13; see Reply
Br. 5. As such, Appellant argues that the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, Icho, and Marti fails to disclose “determining when the user’s body
part comes within a range of interaction with the projected stereoscopic
object.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Dependent claims 7
and 19 recite “determining when the user’s body part comes within a range
of interaction with the projected stereoscopic object” and “when the user’s
body part is within the range of interaction with the stereoscopic object,
dynamically manipulating the stereoscopic object in the stereoscopic
viewing area based on the gesture.” The Examiner finds that Marti discloses
9
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
the contact or collision of the user’s hand with the object. Final Act. 13, 15—
16; Ans. 5—6. The Examiner finds that Marti discloses a gesture detection
module and a collision module that work together to track hand movement
and make adjustments to the object according to the movement in the virtual
environment, where “in a hand gesture involving a 3-D object, there is
necessarily contact or collision between the hand and the object (hand
gesturing in the air, such as waving, does not effect [sic] the 3-D content).”
Marti 138; see Final Act. 13 (citing Marti || 37, 38, 42). That is, when a
user makes a gesture, the modules track the movement so that when the user
is in range of the object and the modules detect that there is contact or
collision with an object in the virtual environment, the object is modified
based on the gesture. See id. As such, the combination of references teach
“determining when the user’s body part comes within a range of interaction
with the projected stereoscopic object,” as recited by claims 7 and 19.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 19.
Appellant further argues that Marti fails to disclose adjusting the
position of the object such “that the user’s body part never breaches the
object,” as recited in claims 9 and 21. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 5—6.
Specifically, Appellant argues that although Marti discloses “changing the
location of the object without deforming the object, whether a user’s finger
actually breaches the object is nowhere to be found.” App. Br. 13; see Reply
Br. 5. Accordingly, Appellant argue that the combination of Underkoffler,
Kumar, Icho, and Marti fails to disclose that “the position of the object is
adjusted such that the user’s body part never breaches the object.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Dependent claims 9
and 21 recite “the position of the stereoscopic object is adjusted such that the
10
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
user’s body part never breaches the object.” The Examiner finds that Marti
discloses a contact or collision module that will prevent deformation of the
object. Final Act. 14—15, 17 (citing Marti 137); Ans. 6. The Examiner
finds that the a gesture detection module and a collision module work
together to modify content in the virtual environment, such as lifting,
holding, squeezing, pinching, or rotating the object, without the object being
deformed or having the shape changed. See Final Act. 14—15, 17 (citing
Marti 137). That is, when a user gestures with their hand and makes contact
with an object in the virtual environment, the object is modified (moved) in
the virtual environment, but not deformed. As such, the combination of
references teach “the position of the stereoscopic object is adjusted such that
the user’s body part never breaches the object,” as recited by claims 9 and
21. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 21.
Claims 12 and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Pikkujamsa
Appellant argues that Pikkujamsa fails to disclose “the interaction
level index defines a type of material of the stereoscopic object,” as recited
in claims 12 and 24. App. Br. 14—15; Reply Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant
argues that although Pikkujamsa discloses characteristics of objects, the
characteristics do not necessarily define a type of material, as required by
claims 12 and 24.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. Appellant and the Examiner
agree that Pikkujamsa discloses physical characteristics of objects. App.
Br. 14-15 (citing Pikkujamsa ^ 7-9, 11, 69-70); Ans. 7 (citing Pikkujamsa
1117). The Examiner finds that “some of the cited characteristics taken in
combination such as elasticity, friction, and spring and damping coefficients
11
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
would indicate a type of material of an object.” Ans. 7. The Examiner,
however, fails to set forth evidence to support such a finding. Rather,
Examiner merely notes that a person with ordinary skill in the art would
have “specified values for the physical characteristics associated with that
type of material.” Id. The Examiner similarly fails to set forth any evidence
for such a finding. Therefore, we disagree with the Examiner that physical
characteristics of an object indicate a “type of material.” Absent sufficient
evidence to support the Examiner’s finding, we are persuaded by
Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 24.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and
24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 13, 14, and 16—
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, and
Icho.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, and Icho.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Wong.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 7—9 and 19—21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and
Marti.
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 12 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Underkoffler, Kumar, Icho, and Pikkujamsa.
12
Appeal 2016-007044
Application 13/901,895
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1—9 and 13—21.
We reverse the rejections of claims 11, 12, 23, and 24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
13