Ex Parte Finn et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201713551618 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/551,618 07/18/2012 Sean Finn 97813-000100US-929821 4309 20350 7590 07/05/2017 KTT PATRTrK TOWNSFND fr STOrKTON T T P EXAMINER Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street SAAVEDRA, EMILIO J Suite 2800 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER Atlanta, UA 5U5UV 2127 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2017 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): ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com KT S Docketing2 @ kilpatrick. foundationip .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEAN FINN and MIKE HEITMAN Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Technology Center 2100 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) rejecting claims 1 and 3-24, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is identified as F3 & Associates. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention relates to three-dimensional model objects, which may be formed by surveying a constructed structure that is georeferenceable in the real world, generating a digital three-dimensional model of the structure, and producing a physical, three-dimensional model object of the structure, the model object including surveyed and measured real world intelligence on a surface. Spec. Abstract. Independent claims 1 and 20, reproduced below, are exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for producing three dimensional model objects, the method comprising: entering, into a processor of a three dimensional printer, image data comprising a digital three dimensional model of a constructed structure wherein the digital three dimensional model was generated based on spatial data obtained by surveying the constructed structure, wherein the constructed structure is georeferenceable in a real-world coordinate system; and producing, using the three dimensional printer, a three dimensional model object of the constructed structure at a calculated scaled down ratio compared to the constructed structure based on the image data, wherein the image data comprising the digital three dimensional model of the constructed structure was modified with one or more georeference markings representing one or more georeference parameters associated with at least a portion of the constructed structure, wherein the one or more georeference parameters were determined by georeferencing the spatial data to at least one of the real-world coordinate system and an elevation datum, and wherein the three dimensional model object has a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface. 2 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 20. A method for producing three dimensional model objects, the method comprising: surveying a constructed structure relative to the earth’s surface to obtain georeferenced spatial data associated with the constructed structure; generating image data comprising a digital three dimensional model of the constructed structure based on the georeferenced spatial data; modifying the image data with one or more georeference markings representing one or more georeference parameters associated with at least a portion of the constructed structure, wherein the one or more georeference parameters were determined by georeferencing the spatial data to a real-world coordinate system; and transmitting the image data to a three dimensional printer; and producing, by the three dimensional printer, a three dimensional model object of the constructed structure at a predetermined scaled down ratio compared to the constructed structure based on the image data, wherein the three dimensional model object has a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface, the one or more georeferenced markings indicating real world coordinates of one or more points on the three-dimensional object model. Examiner’s Rejections & References (1) Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, and 14-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Reverse Engineering: An Industrial Perspective (Vinesh Raja and Kiran J. Fernandes eds., Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008) (“Raja”). Final Act. 5-12. 3 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 (2) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raja and Doytchinov et al. (US 2012/0209553 Al; Aug. 16, 2012) (“Doytchinov”). Final Act. 13-14. (3) Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raja and McAfee et al. (US 2012/0290259 Al; Nov. 15, 2012) (“McAfee”). Final Act. 14-15. (4) Claims 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Raja, Cyra Technologies, Leica High-Definition Surveying Systems - Leica HDS3000 (2003) (“Leica”),2 and G. Slabaugh et al., A Contour-Based Approach to 3D Text Labeling on Triangulated Surfaces, in 5th International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling 416-23 (IEEE Computer Society 2005) (“Slabaugh”).3 Final Act. 15-21. ANALYSIS Anticipation Rejection of Claims 1, 3—9, 11, 12, and 14—19 based on Raja Independent claim 1 includes limitations directed to “producing, using the three dimensional printer, a three dimensional model object. . . wherein the three dimensional model object has a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface.” Appellants argue Raja does not teach forming a georeference marking on a surface of a three dimensional model object. App. Br. 11. 2 We count the pages of the Leica publication (which are not numbered) starting from the first page. 3 The version of the Slabaugh publication of record does not have numbered pages. We count the pages starting from the first page. 4 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 The Examiner construes claim 1 broadly as not requiring the “three dimensional model object” to be a “printed object.” Ans. 7. The Examiner finds (1) the claimed “three dimensional model object” is a “3D computer model” of an object, and (2) the claimed “one or more georeference markings . . . formed on the surface” encompasses “embedding marking data with respect to a [computer model’s] surface” and displaying “point cloud data landmarks ... on a 3d computer model representation.” Ans. 7. The Examiner then finds Raja teaches georeference markings formed on a surface that is “‘imaged’ or viewed on a screen.” Ans. 4 (citing Raja 27-28, § 2.4.1, Fig. 2.13), 7 (citing Raja 61), 12 (citing Raja 71-73), 14-15 (citing Raja 11, 14-15); Final Act. 6 (citing Raja 6, Fig. 1.5). We disagree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and finding that Raja teaches the claimed “three dimensional model object has a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface.” Specifically, claim 1 recites “producing, using the three dimensional printer, a three dimensional model object,” and it is this object that “has a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface.” Thus, we agree with Appellants that claim 1 requires a three-dimensional model object that is a tangible (physical) object produced by a three- dimensional printer. Reply Br. 3. Further, we agree that claim 1 requires the object’s surface to be a tangible surface printed by the three-dimensional printer, and the markings to be tangible items formed by the printer on the surface. Reply Br. 3. Raja’s 3D computer model with landmarks/markings on a computer-rendered surface (see Raja 28, 61, Figs. 2.13 and 3.19) does not teach markings formed on a tangible surface of a tangible three dimensional printed object, as required by claim 1. 5 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 We note that Raja also teaches reference markings are placed on a surface of a tangible object prior to scanning the object, the markings being used to generate a 3D computer model. Final Act. 6 (citing Raja 6, Fig. 1.5). These reference markings, however, are not markings as claimed because Raja’s reference markings are not formed on the object’s surface by a three- dimensional printer, as required by claim 1. Rather, Raja’s reference markings are placed on the original (i.e., not printed) object’s surface, to help scan the object and generate a digital object model. App. Br. 12. Raja further teaches a physical (tangible) object can be printed from a CAD computer model via a rapid prototyping technique (RP) employing three-dimensional printing. See Raja 99-102. Raja, however, does not teach that the RP printed object includes marking(s) printed on the object’s surface from the computer model, as required by claim 1. The Examiner has not shown, nor have we found, that Raja teaches producing, by a three-dimensional printer, a tangible, three-dimensional model object having a surface with markings formed thereon, as required by claim 1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 3-9, 11, 12, and 14-19 similarly rejected as anticipated by Raja. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 10 and 13 based on Raja, Doytchinov, and McAfee With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 10 and 13, the Examiner has not shown that the additional teachings of Doytchinov and McAfee make up for the deficiencies noted in the rejection of claim 1. 6 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 13. Obviousness Rejection of claims 20—24 based on Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh Claim 20 With respect to independent claim 20, Appellants argue Leica does not teach “modifying the image data with one or more georeference markings representing one or more georeference parameters associated with at least a portion of the constructed structure, wherein the one or more georeference parameters were determined by georeferencing the spatial data to a real-world coordinate system.” App. Br. 21. In particular, Appellants argue “[tjhere are no ‘georeference markings’ at all in Leica, so Leica cannot possibly teach or suggest the modification of image data with ‘georeferenced markings’.” Id. Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Leica measures a constructed structure, generates three- dimensional point cloud data from the measurements, and then georeferences the point cloud data to create a georeferenced point cloud, thereby teaching “georeference markings” in image data to represent georeference parameters associated with the constructed structure, as required by claim 20. Ans. 21 (citing Leica 5); final Act. 17 (citing Leica 1, and 5 (bridge image)). We agree with the Examiner’s findings, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In particular, Leica surveys a constructed structure relative to the earth’s surface to obtain georeferenced spatial data (see Leica 1, 5) and generates 3D image data representing the constructed 7 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 structure based on the georeferenced spatial data (see Leica 1 (describing “point cloud capture in progress” to “[visualize incoming point cloud in real-time”), 5 (“3D point cloud data”)). Leica further discloses “[cjaptured point clouds can be accurately aligned to local coordinate systems,” “geo referenced point clouds” from which “accurate 2D ‘as-built’ or ‘as-is’ maps” are generated, and “[ajccurate dimensions [that] are measured directly from the point cloud data” in which “[e]ach point is a survey measurement, with unique Northing, Easting, and Elevation coordinates.” See Leica 4-5; see also Leica 5 (bridge image illustrating the bridge’s point cloud data with georeference markings indicating values for N (Northing), E (Easting), and EL (Elevation) coordinates at the bridge’s pole); Final Act. 17. Thus, Leica’s geo-referenced point clouds teach “modifying the image data with one or more georeference markings,” as claimed. We additionally note Appellants’ Specification broadly describes “a real-world coordinate system” as “an external coordinate system,” which is commensurate with Leica’s “local coordinate systems.” See Spec. ^ 34; Leica 4. Appellants’ Specification further describes “georeference parameters” as “coordinate information” or “a position in a real-world 3D coordinate system,” which is commensurate with Leica’s surveyed coordinates. See Spec. 36, 38; Leica 1, 5. Further, Appellants’ Specification broadly describes the claimed “modifying the image data with one or more georeference markings” as “incorporating relevant and measured real-world intelligence associated with the constructed structure” (see Spec. ^ 22) by “changing the digital 3D model shown on the computer screen to include labels or markings representing the one or more georeference parameters” (see Spec. ^ 65). 8 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Leica’s point cloud markings representing “[ajccurate dimensions . . . measured directly from the point cloud data” and “Elevation coordinates” are commensurate with the broad description of “georeference markings” that “modify image data” in Appellants’ Specification. See Spec. 22, 65; Leica 5. Additionally, the Examiner has articulated sufficient reasoning for incorporating Leica’s georeference markings in Raja’s digital three- dimensional model of a constructed structure, to “better provide visualization of as-built civil engineering structures with accurate dimensions and measurements” as taught by Leica. Final Act. 17 (citing Leica 5). Appellants do not address the Examiner’s combination; rather, Appellants argue neither Leica nor Raja individually teaches the claimed modifying step. Reply Br. 12; App. Br. 21. Appellants further argue Slabaugh does not teach the “three dimensional model object ha[ving] a surface and the one or more georeference markings are formed on the surface,” where “the one or more georeferenced markings indicate] real-world coordinates of one or more points on the three-dimensional object model,” as recited in claim 20; rather, Slabaugh at best “suggests that an object such as a 3D surface can be labeled,” but “the label on Slabaugh’s three dimensional model does not have anything to do with georeferencing or georeferenced data.” App. Br. 21-22 (citing Slabaugh 1, Fig. 9). We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because Appellants improperly attack Slabaugh individually where the rejection is based on a combination of Slabaugh, Leica, and Raja. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Specifically, Appellants argue Slabaugh does not teach 9 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 georeferenced markings indicating real world coordinates on the three- dimensional object model, but the Examiner relies on Leica for this feature, as discussed supra. Final Act. 17 (citing Leica 5); Ans. 21. Appellants also argue Slabaugh does not teach a three-dimensional model object with georeference markings formed on a surface. App. Br. 21. The Examiner, however, relies on Slabaugh for teaching a three-dimensional model object with markings formed on a surface, and Leica for teaching that the markings can be georeference markings. Final Act. 17-18; Ans. 21. Appellants’ arguments do not inform us of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings as to the combined teachings of Slabaugh and Leica. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Slabaugh discloses text labels/markings on a surface of a “3D model that can be fabricated by a rapid prototyping machine” to produce labeled 3D tangible surfaces, thereby teaching a 3D printer produces a 3D model object with markings formed on the object’s surface, as required by claim 20. See Slabaugh 1, 7, Figs. 8-9; Final Act. 17-18. Appellants additionally argue “[ejven if one were to combine Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh in the manner proposed by the Examiner, one would still not arrive at that [sic] is claimed.” App. Br. 23. Appellants explain that “if one were to modify Raja with the teachings in Slabaugh, at best, one would end up with a three-dimensional model that includes a label that identifies the particular model (e.g., a part number for a part in inventory)” because Slabaugh merely “teaches that one can label a part in inventory to help identify it and track it.” App. Br. 22-23. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Slabaugh is not limited to labeling part numbers on inventory. Rather, Slabaugh also labels objects with spatial information 10 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 such as “[t]he text ‘top’ [which] is used to label the part so that its orientation can be easily determined.” See Slabaugh 5, Fig. 8. Thus, Slabaugh shares Leica’s concern for providing spatial information via 3D models of objects. Accordingly, we are not informed of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 20. Claim 21 With regard to dependent claim 21, Appellants argue “[t]he resulting three dimensional model [of the combination] would not include a ‘georeference marking’ that indicates and is associated with real-world coordinates of one or more points on the three-dimensional object model as in claim 21.” App. Br. 23. As discussed supra with respect to claim 20, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh teaches and suggests georeferenced marking(s) indicating real-world coordinates on a three-dimensional object model. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Slabaugh teaches marking(s) embossed on a surface as recited in claim 21. Final Act. 18 (citing Slabaugh 1, 6-7, Fig. 7). Appellants’ arguments have not addressed these specific findings by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 21. Claim 22 Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and recites “wherein the one or more georeferenced markings indicate Northing, Easting, and Elevation values associated with a point on the three-dimensional object model.” Appellants 11 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 contend “[mjarkings with Northing, Easting, and Elevation values are clearly not taught or suggested by Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh.” App. Br. 23. As discussed supra with respect to claim 20, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh teaches and suggests georeferenced markings indicating real-world coordinates of points on a three-dimensional object model. For the reasons discussed above for claim 20, we also agree with the Examiner’s finding that Leica teaches georeferenced markings indicating “unique Northing, Easting, and Elevation coordinates” of points in point cloud data of a 3D model. See Leica 5; Final Act. 19. Appellants further argue there is insufficient rationale to “include Northing, Easting, and Elevation values on Raja’s model, since these values have nothing to do with the dimensions or measurement of the object itself, but are values that relate to the real world.” App. Br. 24; see also Reply Br. 13. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive because Raja is not limited to “dimensions or measurement of the object itself,” as Appellants advocate. Rather, Raja, like Leica, teaches surveying plant and building projects to accurately model their real world spatial characteristics. See Raja 72 (“Capturing the geometry of an existing factory or process plant, to allow using a CAD system for piping; heating, ventilation . . . and so on”), 95, 97; Leica 1,5. As the Examiner reasonably finds, the skilled artisan would have incorporated Leica’s Northing, Easting, or Elevation data, into Raja’s model “to better provide visualization of as-built civil engineering structures with accurate dimensions and measurements.” Final Act. 19 (citing Leica 5). 12 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not informed us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22. Claim 23 Claim 23 depends from claim 20 and recites that “the three dimensional model object is a first three dimensional model object,” and the method further comprises: producing, using the three dimensional printer, a second three dimensional model object comprising a second georeference marking on a second surface of the second three dimensional model, the second georeference marking indicating another real-world coordinate, wherein the first three dimensional object model is configured to be assembled or positioned with respect to the second three dimensional model relative to the earth's surface. Appellants argue “there are no georeferenced markings on any object in the combination of Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh, so there cannot be georeferenced markings on a ‘second’ object as in dependent claim 23.” App. Br. 25; see also Reply Br. 13. As discussed supra with respect to claim 20, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh teaches georeferenced markings on a three-dimensional model object. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Raja, Leica, and Slabaugh teaches the second object and model limitations of claim 23. Final Act. 19-20; Ans. 22. In particular, Raja teaches multiple three-dimensional models as claimed, Leica teaches georeference markings indicating real-world coordinates in three-dimensional models, and Slabaugh teaches printing three-dimensional model objects comprising markings on 13 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 surfaces, as claimed. Final Act. 19-20 (citing Raja 71, 101, Fig. 5.2; Leica 1, 5; Slabaugh 1, 6-7, Fig. 7). Appellants’ arguments have not addressed these findings by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments have not informed us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23. Claim 24 Claim 24 depends from claim 20 and recites that “the determined one or more geometric parameters associated with the at least the portion of the constructed structure are within 1/8 of an inch of actual geometric parameters of the constructed structure with at least a 95 percent confidence level.” Appellants argue “the Examiner cites no less than 9 pages from Raja as teaching the specific limitation” in claim 24, but “none of those passages teaches or suggests the limitation.” App. Br. 25. Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific findings that Raja discloses precision of measured large geometry structures being below 1 mm and in the micrometer range, thereby teaching geometric parameters within 1/8 of an inch of actual geometric parameters of a constructed structure, as claimed. Ans. 19, 23 (citing Raja 44, 87); Final Act. 21 (citing Raja 115, 144, 152). Regarding the claimed “at least a 95 percent confidence level,” the Examiner finds the skilled artisan would have known that “‘confidence level’ is a statistical measure of the order of sigma, which is the 2-sigma standard deviation defining the 95 percentile confidence level,” and therefore Raja’s 2o accuracy teaches precision with at least a 95 percent confidence level, as claimed. Ans. 19-20 (citing Raja 44, 88, 144). As the 14 Appeal 2016-008658 Application 13/551,618 Examiner has provided reasonable findings that Appellants have not addressed, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 24. DECISION We reverse (1) the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 1, 3-9, 11, 12, and 14-19, and (2) the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 10 and 13. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 20-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 15 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation