GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019004561 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
14/577,255 12/19/2014 Ser Nam Lim 272295-US-1 | GERD:1186 8667
41838 7590 12/31/2020
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Global Research)
C/O FLETCHER YODER
P. O. BOX 692289
HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289
EXAMINER
LIMA, FABIO S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2486
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
rariden@fyiplaw.com
robinson@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SER NAM LIM, JOSEPH VINCENT PAWLOWSKI, LI
GUAN, YOGESH AGARWAL, BINOD PANDEY, and
SRIVATSA DHANVANTRI

Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255
Technology Center 2400

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1 and 3–21 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric
Company. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 19, 2014;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 31, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”), filed May 20, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention, according to Appellant, generally “relates to a system
and method for borescope engine inspection.” Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s claims
recite optical imaging and processing systems and methods for generating a
model using an optical imaging and processing system. The system includes
an optical connection with an optical element at its end, such that the optical
may extend into a component interior, a photodiode array disposed at the
opposite end of the optical connection, such that the optical element may
transmit a video stream of the component interior through the optical
connection to the photodiode array as the optical element is moved within
the component interior. A processor is coupled to the photodiode array,
such that the processor may process the video stream to generate a three-
dimensional model of the component interior. The processor also may
determine identifying features in image frames of the video stream,
determine corresponding identifying features between the image frames,
correlate the corresponding identifying features between the image frames in
order to simultaneously determine relative localization data of the image
frames, and locate the corresponding identifying features, based on the
relative localization data of the image frames or the corresponding
identifying features between the image frames to produce a three-
dimensional model. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–5; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a
system), 11 (directed to a method), and 17 (directed to a method) are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:

Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Nov. 1, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
Mar. 20, 2019.
Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255

3
1. An optical imaging and processing system, comprising:
an optical connection and an optical element disposed at a
first end of the optical connection, wherein the first end of the
optical connection is configured to extend into a turbine
component interior such that the optical element is disposed
within the turbine component interior;
a photodiode array disposed at a second end of the optical
connection, wherein the optical element is configured to transmit
a video stream of the turbine component interior through the
optical connection to the photodiode array as the optical element
is moved within the turbine component interior between multiple
vantage points;
a processor coupled to the photodiode array, wherein the
processor is configured to process the video stream to generate a
three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the turbine
component interior without utilizing a previously defined three-
dimensional model input of the turbine component interior,
wherein the processor is further configured to
determine identifying features within image frames
of the video stream from the multiple vantage points;
determine corresponding identifying features
between the image frames;
correlate the corresponding identifying features
between the image frames to simultaneously determine relative
localization data of the image frames and the corresponding
identifying features between the image frames; and
locate the corresponding identifying features, based
on the relative localization data of the image frames and/or the
corresponding identifying features between the image frames, in
a point cloud such that the point cloud forms the three-
dimensional model.
Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2012/0162192 A1 June 28, 2012
Myers et al.
(“Myers”)
US 6,278,460 B1 Aug. 21, 2001
Soon-Yong Park and Murali Subbarao, A Range Image Refinement
Technique for Multi-view 3D Model Reconstruction, Computer Society,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging
and Modeling (2003) (“Park”).
REJECTIONS3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–9, and 11–21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Myers. See Final Act. 4–15.
2. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Wang, Myers, and Park. See Final Act. 15–16.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent
claims 11 and 17, and dependent claims 3–9, 12–16, and 18–21) as being
obvious over Wang and Myers. See Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 3–5. Appellant
contends that Wang and Myers do not teach the disputed limitations of claim
1. See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8. Specifically, Appellant contends,
inter alia, that claim 1 requires “determining the relative localization data
. . . simultaneous[ly] with determining the corresponding identifying
features” (Appeal Br. 5), but Myers instead describes “that the relative

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this
decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255

5
localization data of the image frames (i.e. the camera position between
image frames) is determined subsequent to, not simultaneously with, the
determination of the corresponding identifying features between the image
frames” (Appeal Br. 6). See also Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Myers
(in combination with Wang) do not teach or suggest “simultaneously
determin[ing] relative localization data of the image frames and the
corresponding identifying features between the image frames” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.); see also id. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8.
As pointed out by Appellant (see Reply Br. 5–8), the Examiner relies
on Myers to teach the simultaneous determinations required by claim 1, but
the Examiner-cited portions of Myers do not teach simultaneous
determination of relative localization data of the image frames (i.e., camera
orientation and position data) and corresponding identifying features
between the image frames. Myers, instead, teaches a two-step (two pass)
process, where camera position information is extracted (during a first pass)
and ray casting (based on the camera position) is used to create a model.
Myers also describes using a separate ray casting technique to determine the
camera position information based on selected image features, but the
camera position and identifying features are determined separately not
simultaneously. See Myers, col. 2, 1. 57–col. 3, 1. 29; col. 4, ll. 48–52; col.
6, ll. 48–55; col. 9, ll. 15–48. Fig. 3.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Wang and Myers
renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 17 include
Appeal 2019-004561
Application 14/577,255

6
limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 3–9, 12–16, and 18–21depend
from and stand with claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively.
The Examiner rejects dependent claim 10 as being obvious over
Wang, Myers, and Park. See Final Act. 15–16. The Examiner does not
suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited reference (Park) cures
the deficiencies of Wang in combination with Myers (supra). Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 10 for the
same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and
3–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1 and 3–21.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–21 103 Wang, Myers 1, 3–9, 11–21
10 103 Wang, Myers, Park 10
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–21

REVERSED