Ex Parte Girard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13556096 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
13/556,096 07/23/2012 Michael GIRARD AUTO/1234.03 5178
107456 7590 08/29/2017
Artegis Law Group, LLP
John Carey
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
TSENG, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2613
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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):
algdocketing @ artegislaw. com
kcruz @ artegislaw.com
rsmith @ artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GIRARD
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and LYNNE E.
PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20 and 23.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant’s Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,”
filed January 17, 2017) and Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed October 10,
2016), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 16, 2016) and
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 7, 2016).
2 According to Appellant, the Real Party in Interest is Autodesk, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
3 Claims 21 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base
claim 10, and intervening claims 11 and 12, but would be allowable if
rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 18.
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention is directed to collision avoidance between
objects at points of intersection in a crowd simulation animation. Spec. 7.
Claims 1,10, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from illustrative claim 1.
1. A computer-implemented method for avoiding collisions
between a plurality of moving objects included in a computer
animation, the method comprising:
identifying a plurality of intersection points in the
computer animation being approached by a first moving
object that is located at a first location and moving at a first
speed;
identifying a set of additional moving objects included in
the computer animation, wherein each moving object in
the set of additional moving objects is approaching at least
one intersection point in the plurality of intersection
points;
determining, via a processor, that the first moving object
is set to collide with at least one additional moving object
at at least one intersection point in the plurality of
intersection points; and
modifying the first speed of the first moving object in the
computer animation in order to avoid a collision between
the first moving object and any moving object in the set of
additional moving objects at any intersection point
included in the plurality of intersection points.
2
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
REFERENCES
Christopher et al. US 2010/0141666 A1 June 10, 2010
Stephen J. Guy et al., Clearpath: Highly Parallel Collision Avoidance
for Multi-Agent Simulation, Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH
Symposium on Computer Animation (2009).
Adrien Treuille et al., Continuum Crowds, Association for Computing
Machinery, Inc. (2006).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 10, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Guy. Final Act. 6—9.
Claims 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over the combination of Guy and Christopher. Final Act. 10—11.
Claims 3—7 and 12—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Guy, Christopher, and Treuille. Final
Act. 11-16.
Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Guy and Treuille. Final Act. 16—17.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Guy discloses “identifying a plurality
of intersection points in the computer animation being approached by a first
moving object that is located at a first location and moving at a first speed,”
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims
10, and 19,?
3
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites “identifying a plurality of intersection
points in the computer animation being approached by a first moving object
that is located at a first location and moving at a first speed.” Independent
claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations and are argued by Appellant
together with claim 1. App Br. 11; Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner finds Guy discloses “the agent moves from a (first)
position at a (first) velocity (speed) at a particular time instant T for each
time step for updating ‘the state of each agent, including its position and
velocity during each time step.’” Ans. 3^4 (citing Guy p. 179). The
Examiner additionally finds that Guy discloses using the agent (object)
position (first location) and velocity (first speed) as a basis for determining
collision (intersection) points with other agents in a simulated animation.
Final Act. 7, 9; Ans. 3—5; see Guy pp. 179—181. Further, the Examiner finds
Guy discloses “determination of ‘all possible intersections’ and ‘intersection
points’ approached by the agent” (object) for each agent (object) to compute
a collision free velocity for each agent (object) independently. Ans. 3, 5
(citing Guy pp. 180-181).
Appellant disagrees and argues that Guy discloses a single
intersection point being approached by an object for each of a plurality of
velocities, at which the object is moving and would collide at that
intersection point with another object, then selecting a velocity for the object
to avoid collision at that intersection point. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 3^4. Put
another way, Appellant argues that “although a given [velocity obstacle]
disclosed by Guy includes multiple intersection points, each intersection
point is associated with a different velocity at which an object at a particular
4
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
location may travel during the current time interval.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
4. As a result, Appellant contends that Guy, comparing the velocity
obstacles for objects to select a velocity for each object to avoid collision,
does not disclose multiple, different intersection points for an object
approaching intersection points at a first speed, as required by the claims.
App. Br. 12, 13; Reply Br. 4—6. Appellant additionally argues that the
velocity obstacles in Guy are each associated with different intersection
points, different velocities, and different starting locations. Reply Br. 5—6.
We disagree with Appellant because Appellant’s arguments
misrepresent the Examiner’s findings and Guy’s disclosures. While we
acknowledge and agree with Appellant’s argument that the computed
velocity obstacles of Guy present different velocities at which an object at a
particular location may travel, we disagree that Guy fails to also disclose
identifying multiple intersection points for an object at a first location,
travelling at a first speed. As Appellant acknowledges in the Appeal Brief,
citing to Section 3.3 and Figure 3C of Guy, and based on the findings of the
Examiner, “the technique of Guy maps whether an object [first object]
located at a single position will collide with one or more other objects
included in a scene.” App. Br. 11. It follows that a first object in Guy
located at a first position, colliding with one or more other objects, would
include one or more intersection points as those collision points. Therefore,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Guy discloses multiple
intersection points being approached by a first object at a first location, as
claimed. See Ans. 4. Further, as the Examiner finds, Guy discloses “the
velocity obstacle represents the evaluation of multiple velocities as possible
modifications to the initial velocity at a particular time instant T” Ans. 3
5
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
(citing to Guy pp. 179—180 (Sections 3—3.2; Fig. 3)) (emphasis added). That
is, Guy discloses taking an independent, first object located at a first position
and traveling at an initial velocity, in a simulation with other objects, where
those other objects would present points of collision and then computing the
velocity obstacles for that first object in order to select a modified velocity
that falls outside of the velocity obstacles so as to avoid collision points. It
follows that Guy’s initial velocity is a first velocity that may or may not be
modified at a particular time T, based on points of collision or a plurality of
intersection points. Therefore, we agree that Guy discloses identifying
whether an object at a particular positon (first position) and moving at a
particular, initial velocity (first speed) at a particular time T will collide with
one or more objects in the scene (determines various intersection points with
the one or more objects).
Appellant’s arguments do not address the Examiner’s specific
findings and rather focus on different disclosures from the Guy reference.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
10, and 19. Likewise, we sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2—9,
11—18, and 20 that are not argued separately with particularity.
Regarding claim 23, Appellant makes the same arguments as with
respect to claims 1,10, and 19. App. Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 5-6. Thus, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23 for the same reasons indicated
above with respect to claims 1,10, and 19.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Guy discloses “identifying a
plurality of intersection points in the computer animation being approached
6
Appeal 2017-004441
Application 13/556,096
by a first moving object that is located at a first location and moving at a
first speed,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in
independent claims 10, and 19.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 10, 19, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Guy is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Guy and Christopher is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3—7 and 12—16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Guy, Christopher, and
Treuille is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 8, 9, 17, 18, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Guy and Treuille is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7