2020003333 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 2, 2021

2020003333 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2021)

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. 15/659,136 07/25/2017 Justin Mamrak 318008-US-1/GE3D-444 8836 122218 7590 08/02/2021 Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER RIGOL, YAIMA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2135 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/02/2021 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): oc.prosecution@ge.com usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUSTIN MAMRAK ____________ Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and, JENNIFER MEYER CHAGNON, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16 and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Appellant’s claimed invention relates to data storage for large amounts of geometric data (Spec., para. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of storing a set of data representing a point cloud, comprising: creating an array in a digital memory having cells addressable by reference to at least one index, wherein the at least one index has a predetermined correspondence to a geometric location within the point cloud; and storing a value of the data set in each of the cells. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the rejections: Name Reference Date Razdan US 2005/0168460 A1 Aug. 4, 2005 Chang US 2013/0080487 A1 Mar. 28, 2013 Rodney US 2014/0067333 A1 Mar. 6, 2014 Poelman US 2015/0125071 A1 May 7, 2015 Curington US 2015/0220812 A1 Aug. 6, 2015 Flanagan US 9,182,913 B2 Nov. 10, 2015 Freeman US 9,262,788 B1 Feb. 16, 2016 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, and Poelman. 2. Claims 2–4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Flanagan. Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 3 3. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Razdan2. 4. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Curington. 5. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Rodney. 6. Claims 9–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, and Curington. 7. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, and Razdan. 8. Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, and Rodney. 9. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, and Flanagan. 10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Flanagan, and Curington. 2 The inclusion of claim 13 in this rejection in the Final Rejection is considered a typographical error as claim 13 does not depend from claim 5, but rather claim 9. Claim 9 and claim 13 are also listed in separate rejections in the Final Rejection which address the additional limitations in those claims. Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence3. ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because the none of the applied references disclose, teach, or suggest the claim limitation for storing data representing a point cloud in an array with “at least one index ha[ving] a predetermined correspondence to a geometric location within the point cloud” (App. Br. 9). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Action 1–3; Ans. 3–6). We agree with the Examiner. Appellant argues that Freeman does not disclose the step of “creating an array in the digital memory” (Appeal Brief 8). However, the rejection relies on Chang for disclosing this feature (Final Act. 2, (citing Chang ¶ 17)), which does disclose this. Appellant argues that Poelman does not disclose “storing point cloud data in an array” (Appeal Br. 9). The rejection however cites to Chang at paras. 12, 19, and 20 as disclosing this, which the reference does (Final Act. 2). Appellant argues that the prior art combination fails to suggest the claim language for creating an array with “at least one index is a predetermined correspondence to a geometric location within the point 3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 5 cloud” (Appeal Br. 9). This argument is unpersuasive because it merely constitutes a recitation of the claim language. A statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1). Regardless, the rejection of record discloses the elements of the argued claim limitation, and we agree with the Examiner that the cited combination of references would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in the final rejection. Appellant has provided similar arguments in the Reply Brief at page 3, but these arguments are not deemed persuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims, which are not separately argued. Claim 9 Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 9 is improper because none of the applied references disclose, teach, or suggest the claim limitation drawn to “multiplying each of the one or more physical coordinate indices by a predetermined scalar multiplication factor, so as to produce one or more array indices” (Appeal Br. 11). Appellant also argues that the cited combination of references would not have been obvious (Appeal Br. 12). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the cited claim limitation is shown by Flanagan at col. 9, lines 60–4, and Curington at paragraphs 45, 47, 48, 52, 53, 102, and 108 (Final Act. 9, 10). We agree with Appellant. Here, the argued claim limitation requires “multiplying each of the one or more physical coordinate indices by a predetermined scalar multiplication factor, so as to produce one or more Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 6 array indices,” and this is not shown where referenced in the rejection of record. For example, Flanagan at column 9, lines 60–64, makes mention of a palette gain as “multiplier” for grayscale in an example, but this passage has nothing to do with physical coordinate indices or the production of one or more arrays. Curington’s paragraph 47 relates to tangent plane estimates, but does not specifically show or suggest the claimed step of “multiplying each of the one or more physical coordinate indices by a predetermined scalar multiplication factor, so as to produce one or more array indices” alone, or in combination with the other references. Here, the cited prior art references do not disclose or suggest the argued claim limitation, and the rejection further lacks articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness to meet the cited claim limitation in combination with the other elements of the claim. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 9 and its dependent claims is not sustained. Claim 16 Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 16 is improper because none of the applied references disclose, teach, or suggest the claim limitation for storing data representing a point cloud in an array having “first and second indexes correlated to a physical value” (Appeal Br. 13). In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is proper (Final Act. 11–13; Ans. 10, 11). We agree with the Examiner. Freeman discloses the use of indexes (Freeman col. 5, ll. 4–46, col. 6, ll. 24–37). Freeman also discloses Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 7 coordinate sets of 3D data points that represent a physical value, as claimed (Freeman col. 2, ll. 17–21). Thus, the argued limitation has been shown in the cited prior art. Turning to the argument that the cited combination would not have been obvious, a statement that merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1). Regardless, the rejection of record discloses the elements of the argued claim limitation, and we also agree with the Examiner that the cited combination of references would have been obvious for the reasons set forth in the final rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 16 and its dependent claims, which are not separately argued. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims, as follows: Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, and Poelman; Claims 2–4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Flanagan; Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Razdan; Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Curington; Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, and Rodney; Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 8 Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, and Flanagan; and Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Flanagan, and Curington. Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in the following rejections: Claims 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, and Curington; Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, and Razdan; and Claims 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, and Rodney. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman 1 2–4 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan 2–4 5 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Razdan 5 6 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Curington 6 7, 8 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Rodney 7, 8 9–13 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, 9–13 Appeal 2020-003333 Application 15/659,136 9 Flanagan, Curington 13 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, Razdan 13 14, 15 103 Freeman, Chang, Poelman, Flanagan, Curington, Rodney 14, 15 16 103 Freeman, Chang, Flanagan 16 18 103 Freeman, Chang, Flanagan, Curington 18 Overall Outcome 1–8, 16, 18 9–15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART