Ex Parte Finn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2017

13551618 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2017)

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