Ex Parte Appia et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2019

14322887 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/322,887 07/02/2014 23494 7590 06/28/2019 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vikram VijayanBabu Appia 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. TI-73538 4046 EXAMINER BRANIFF, CHRISTOPHER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2484 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2019 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIKRAM VIJA Y ANBABU and IBRAHIM ETHEM PEKKUCUKSEN Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 Technology Center 2400 Before MARC S. HOFF, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Structured-light imaging devices project patterns on physical objects and capture images of the pattern with a high-resolution camera. Spec. ,r 3. The devices then estimate depth from the pattern's variations in the captured images. Id. The high-resolution camera's frame rate, however, is relatively low, which makes it a bottleneck. Id. ,r 4. Appellants' invention is a structured-light imaging device that uses low-resolution cameras with high frame rates. Id. ,r 12. The invention then generates a high-resolution image by combining multiple low-resolution images. Id. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method of image processing in a structured light imaging device, the method comprising: capturing a plurality of images of a scene into which a structured light pattern is projected by a projector in the structured light imaging device; extracting features in each of the captured images; 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated of Dallas, Texas, United States of America. App. Br. 2. 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed October 6, 2016; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed July 10, 2017; the Advisory Action ("Adv. Act.") mailed August 24, 2017; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 19, 2018; and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 20, 2018. 2 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 finding feature matches between a reference image of the plurality of captured images and each of the other images in the plurality of captured images; rectifying each of the other images to align with the reference image, wherein each image of the other images is rectified based on feature matches between the image and the reference image; combining the rectified other images and the reference image using interpolation to generate a high resolution image; and generating a depth image using the high resolution image. THE EVIDENCE The Examiner relies on the following as evidence: Gordon et al. Chang et al. US 2008/0118143 Al US 2009/0015791 Al THE REJECTION3 May 22, 2008 Jan. 15,2009 The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Chang and Gordon. Final Act. 3-9. 3 In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also rejected claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. Final Act. 9-11. Appellants canceled those claims in an Amendment submitted with the Appeal Brief. App. Br. 2. The Examiner entered this amendment. Adv. Act. Therefore, the only rejection we consider for purposes of appeal is the Chang-Gordon obviousness rejection. Final Act. 3-9. 3 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 GROUP 1 (CLAIM 1) The Examiner's Rejection In the combination of Chang and Gordon, the Examiner finds that Chang rectifies the captured images and combines them to generate a high- resolution image. Final Act. 5; Ans. 10. Appellants' Arguments Appellants argue that Chang does not rectify images that are captured. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue that the paragraph cited by the Examiner discusses Chang's correspondence mappings, which are not images, much less captured images. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue that Chang generates the higher-resolution images without combining images that are captured. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellants, Chang's high-resolution displayed image is generated by simultaneously projecting two or more images, those projected images are derived from a corresponding high-resolution image (134), and this high-resolution image, in tum, is derived from image data 132-and none of the images used in this process are captured. App. Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 3 ( discussing images projected by projectors 110). Issues Under Â§ 103, has the Examiner shown that Chang teaches or suggests ( 1) "rectifying each of the other images to align with the reference image" and (2) "combining the rectified other images and the reference image using interpolation to generate a high resolution image"? 4 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 Analysis I Claim 1 recites, in part, ( 1) "rectifying each of the other images to align with the reference image," and (2) these "other images" are "in the plurality of captured images." In other words, claim 1 requires aligning captured images with a reference image. Appellants argue that Chang lacks this feature. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2--4. We agree with the Examiner that Chang captures images. Final Act. 5 ( citing Chang Fig. 2). In particular, Chang projects an infrared pattern. Chang ,r 32 (discussing Fig. 2). Image-capture device 120 captures this pattern. Id. The device then provides the captured frames (124) to processing circuitry 100. Id. ,r 13, Fig. lB. Chang's Figure lB, below, illustrates this process. 5 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 Chang's Figure lB shows a block diagram of the image-display system. Chang 14. Processing system 100 generates correspondence mappings 108( 1}-108(N) from the captured frames. See id. ,r 18. In sum, Chang's captured frames are captured images, which produce mappings 108. See Ans. 10. Claim 1 requires aligning the captured images with the reference image. See App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3. Similarly, in generating mappings 108, Chang aligns frame 136 with the captured frames. Chang ,r 34, cited in Ans. 10. Chang's frame 136 contains infrared pattern 138. Id. ,r 23; see also id. ,r 32. Frame generation unit 104 provides a copy of frame 136 to calibration unit 106. Id. ,r 23. Calibration unit 106 then compares infrared pattern 138 in frame 136 with infrared pattern 122 in the captured frames. Id. ,r 34. Specifically, unit 106 determines correspondences "between 6 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 regions or pixels in the projector plane of projector 110 and regions or pixels in the capture plane of image capture device 120." Id. In this way, Chang aligns the "other images" ( captured frames) with the "reference image" (frame 136). See Ans. 10 ( citing Chang ,r 34); Final Act. 5---6. II We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument that Chang does not combine captured images. App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 2. In Appellants' view, Chang's high-resolution image comes from image frame 134 and image data 132, not captured images. App. Br. 6. Yet, in addition to image frame 134 and image data 132, Chang also uses mappings 108 to generate the high-resolution images. Chang ,r 15. In particular, Chang explains that "[ fJrame generation unit 104 processes each image frame 134 along with correspondence mappings 108(1)-108(N) to generate one or more frames 13 6(1)-136(N), respectively, for display by projectors 110(1 )-11 O(N), respectively." Id. ( emphasis added). That is, Chang uses the correspondence mappings-which are from collecting and combining captured frames and reference frame 1364-to generate the high- resolution images. Id. ,r,r 15, 18. In this way, Chang combines the rectified captured images and the reference frame to generate the high-resolution images. See Final Act. 5-6. Thus, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. 4 The Examiner finds that Chang uses interpolation. Final Act. 6. Appellants do not rebut this finding. See generally App. Br.; Reply Br. 7 Appeal2018-006979 Application 14/322,887 THE REMAINING GROUPS In arguing for the patentability of claims 2--4, 7-10, and 13-16 (Groups 2 through 12), Appellants refer to the arguments presented for independent claim 1. App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 4---6. Also, for claim 3 (Group 3), Appellants argue that Chang's paragraph 16 "discusses projected images instead of captured images," which is similar to an argument addressed by our analysis above. Compare App. Br. 8, with Reply Br. 3, discussed supra. So, for the reasons discussed with regard to Group 1, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2--4, 7-10, and 13-16. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-10, and 13-16. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8