Matterport, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2020

14070430 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2020)

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.
14/070,430 11/01/2013 Matthew Bell MATT-0005.US01D5 9724
160712 7590 09/01/2020
Ahmann Kloke LLP
650 Gilman Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
EXAMINER
DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2488
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2020 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@ahmannkloke.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
william@ahmannkloke.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
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, 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 2–5, 7–25, and 27–30. Claims 1, 6, and
26 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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
Matterport, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430

2
RELATED DECISIONS
Appellant identifies three patent applications under appeal relating to
the subject matter of this appeal. Each appeal has been since resolved in
Board decisions issued July 2, 2019. The related applications are: (1) App.
No. 14/070,427 (Appeal No. 2018-007317), (2) App. No. 14/070,428
(Appeal No. 2018-007323), and (3) App. No. 14/070,429 (Appeal No. 2018-
007640).
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a capturing and aligning three-dimensional
scenes. Claim 2, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
2. A method comprising:
determining, by a system comprising a processor, a global
alignment, relative to a three-dimensional coordinate space,
between three or more sets of three-dimensional data captured
from an object or an environment at different capture positions
or orientations, wherein the three or more sets of three-
dimensional data respectively correspond to volumes of the
object or the environment and wherein at least some of the
volumes overlap;
identifying, by the system, a first set of a second set of
three-dimensional data from the three or more sets of three-
dimensional data that correspond to non-overlapping volumes of
the object or the environment;
determining, by the system, a first set of visual features
included in a first two-dimensional image associated with the
first set of three-dimensional data;
determining, by the system, a second set of visual features
included in a second two-dimensional image associated with the
second set of three-dimensional data; and
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430

3
determining, by the system, an alignment score
representative of a quality of a pair-wise alignment between the
first set of three-dimensional data and the second set of three-
dimensional data based on a comparison of the first set of visual
features and the second set of visual features.
Appeal Br. 65 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ninan US 2012/0162366 A1 June 28, 2012
Rosenstein US 2012/0185094 A1 July 19, 2012

REJECTIONS
Claims 2–5, 7–25, and 27–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ninan and Rosenstein. Final Act. 2–41.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding the cited references teach or
suggest “determining . . . a global alignment, relative to a three-dimensional
coordinate space, between three or more sets of three-dimensional data
captured from an object or an environment at difference capture positions or
orientations, wherein the three or more sets of three-dimensional data
respectively correspond to volumes of the object or the environment,” as
recited in claim 2?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the disputed limitation taught by Ninan. Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Ninan Fig. 9, ¶¶ 57, 115–116). More specifically, the
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430

4
Examiner finds that Ninan teaches the use of hardware/software components
which compute the depth of pixels in input scanlines from pixel disparity.
Ans. 39–40. The Examiner explains that Ninan’s image processing system
“may determine the depth based on the disparity and geometric
configuration of the camera elements 102-1 and 102-2 (i.e., the camera
elements have ‘different capture positions or orientations’).” Ans. 40.
Appellant argues “Ninan discloses a system in which left and right
input frames (i.e., 2D images) are captured and used to generate stereoscopic
HDR images.” Appeal Br. 22. Appellant asserts the cited disclosure of
Ninan “merely discloses using information regarding the geometric portion
of the left camera . . . relative to the right camera . . ., to determine a
geometric disparity between corresponding pixels.” Appeal Br. 24.
Appellant further argues Ninan fails to teach or suggest “sets of three-
dimensional data captured from an object or an environment,” because
“[c]aptured depth data requires usage of a depth capturing instrument (e.g., a
depth sensor or LIDAR)” and that the data captured by Ninan’s stereoscopic
camera is two dimensional in nature, and that any depth information
associated with a 3D image is derived and not captured. Reply Br. 22–23.
Appellant further argues that Ninan merely describes “a conventional
passive stereo technique for deriving depth information,” and that even if the
stereoscopic images pairs are considered captured sets of three dimensional
data, Ninan does not teach or suggest “determining an alignment” between
sets of depth information. Appeal Br. 24−25.
We are persuaded of Examiner error. Ninan “relates to image
processing systems that process three-dimensional (3D) images from a
standard stereoscopic camera to generate 2D or 3D High Dynamic Range
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430

5
(HDR) images.” Ninan ¶ 2. Thus, Ninan describes using non-HDR capable
cameras to capture images that are subsequently processed so that they can
be displayed in 3D on a HDR display. Ninan achieves this goal through the
use of a stereoscopic camera in which the left lens is “set to a first exposure
setting for capturing relatively bright portions of a scene, while a right view
camera element . . . may be set to a second exposure setting for capturing
relatively dim portions of the same scene.” Ninan ¶ 29.
The Examiner finds that Ninan’s computing of pixel depth using
disparity of pixels is a “global alignment.” However, to the extent pixel
depth is a “global alignment,” Ninan makes this determination based on two
stereoscopic images – i.e., two sets of 2D image data – and not based on
multiple sets of 3D image data. As persuasively explained by Appellant,
“Ninan merely discloses deriving depth or 3D data from a captured 2D
image.” Reply Br. 23. We also agree with Appellant that the pair of
stereoscopic images captured in Ninan are not “sets of three-dimensional
data captured from an object or an environment,” as the depth information is
derived from the two dimensional images, and the raw information captured
by the stereoscopic camera lacks any depth component. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the rejection claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), nor the rejection
of independent claims 13 and 23 which recite similar limitations.
Remaining Claims
The remaining claims are each depend from one or independent
claims 2, 13, and 23. By virtue of their respective dependencies, they each
stand together with their respective independent claims.
CONCLUSION
We reverse Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2019-001984
Application 14/070,430

6
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–5, 7–25,
27–30
103(a) Ninan, Rosenstein 2–5, 7–25,
27–30

REVERSED