Ex Parte Bell et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 28, 2019

14070428 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/070,428 11/01/2013 23623 7590 07/02/2019 AMIN, TUROCY & WATSON, LLP 200 Park A venue Suite 300 Beachwood, OH 44122 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Matthew Bell 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. MPORP105USD 5452 EXAMINER DOBBS, KRISTIN SENSMEIER ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2019 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): hmckee@thepatentattomeys.com rveri@thepatentattomeys.com docket@thepatentattomeys.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 Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVINE. BRANCH, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 2--4, 6-11, 14--29, 31-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Matterport, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 RELATED APPEALS Appellant identifies Appeal No. 2018-007317 (Application No. 14/070,427) and Appeal No. 2018-007640 (Application No. 14/070,429) as related proceedings. We decide each of these related appeals in separate decisions issued on this day. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to three-dimensional image reconstruction techniques which allow a three-dimensional reconstruction of an environment to be generated based on mapping data provided by the alignment of a plurality of captured three-dimensional images of the environment. Spec. ,r,r 6-7. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A device, comprising: a processor, and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor, facilitate performance of operations, compnsmg: receiving three-dimensional data of an environment captured via a three-dimensional capture device of the device; determining an alignment between the three- dimensional data and a three-dimensional model of the environment; based on the alignment, determining a current position of the device relative to a first location on or within the three-dimensional model that is associated with an auxiliary data object, wherein the auxiliary data object comprises visual data capable of being presented on a display of the device; and based on the current position of the device relative to the first location and a current viewpoint of the 2 Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 environment as viewed on or through the display, determining a perspective for displaying the auxiliary data object via the display that spatially aligns the auxiliary data object with a second location in the environment that corresponds to the first location on or within the three- dimensional model. App. Br. 49 (Claims Appendix). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ninan Rosenstein US 2012/0162366 Al Jun. 28, 2012 US 2012/0185094 Al Jul. 19, 2012 REJECTION Claims 2--4, 6-11, 14--29, 31-35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Ninan and Rosenstein. Final Act. 3-37. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in finding Rosenstein teaches or suggests based on the current position of the device relative to the first location and a current viewpoint of the environment as viewed on or through the display, determining a perspective for displaying the auxiliary data object via the display that spatially aligns the auxiliary data object with a second location in the environment that corresponds to the first location on or within the three-dimensional model, as recited in the independent claims? 3 Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 2, the Examiner finds that Ninan generally teaches the claimed processor and memory, as well as the use of a three dimensional capture device to capture three-dimensional data of an environment. Final Act. 3 (citing Ninan Figs. IA, IB, 9; ,r,r 36, 37, 115, 116). The Examiner relies on Rosenstein for the remaining limitations. Final Act. 4--5. Relevant to this issue, the Examiner finds Rosenstein teaches the disputed limitation because it shows an object detection system which includes a 3D speckle camera which constructs a 3D map of a room for object recognition and/or object tracking. Final Act. 6 ( citing Rosenstein Fig. 30, ,r,r 252-256). The Examiner further finds Rosenstein teaches a mobile robot can construct a 3D image of the same room from a different perspective which may be used for comparison with the 3D map created by the imaging sensor to resolve locations of objects within the room. Id. Appellants argue Rosenstein does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation. App. Br. 22-24; Reply Br. 23-25. More specifically, Appellants contend that the disputed limitation relates "to using novel 3D reconstruction systems to facilitate an augmented reality (AR) application." App. Br. 23 (citing Spec. ,r 114 as an example embodiment). Appellants assert the disputed limitation "involves determining where and how to display an auxiliary data object (e.g., captured by "the perspective for displaying the auxiliary data object") in an AR context such that it is properly spatially aligned with a second location in the environment that corresponds to the first location on or within the three-dimensional [model]." App. Br. 23. Appellants argue the cited portions of Rosenstein do not "hav[ e] anything to do with AR," (App. Br. 24) and the cited portion of Rosenstein "merely 4 Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 indicates that two different 3D maps of a same environment can be created from different vantage points." Id. Appellants assert that Rosenstein does not teach "determining a perspective for displaying these images, let alone a perspective that spatially aligns the images with a location in the environment that corresponds to its determined location relative to a 3D model." Id. We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The cited portions of Rosenstein broadly describe monitoring people in an environment using 3D cameras for body gesture recognition in order to allow the system to detect when a person needs assistance and alert a caregiver. Rosenstein (i1i1252- 256 ("Certain gestures, such as a fallen gesture or a hand waving gesture, can raise an emergency event trigger with the object detection system 3000.") Rosenstein teaches that a 3D mapping of an environment can be made from two different vantage points----one from mounted sensors in a room, and a second from a mobile robot. Rosenstein ,r,r 253-254. However, Rosenstein provides no discussion of how data objects should be displayed based on these mappings. More specifically, it does not describe any process in which a perspective is determined for displaying a data object "that spatially aligns the auxiliary data object with a second location in the environment that corresponds to the first location on or within the three- dimensional model," as recited in claim 2. Rosenstein is not concerned with how to display image data. Rather, it relates to detecting movement of body parts within a scene. As such, we agree with Appellants that the cited portions of Rosenstein do not teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2 and its dependent claims which stand therewith. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection 5 Appeal2018-007323 Application 14/070,428 of independent claims 14 and 2 7 and their respective dependent claims, which recite similar limitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 2--4, 6-11, 14--29, 31- 35. REVERSED 6