Lifeng Liu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 14, 2022

2021000562 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2022)

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. 12/963,007 12/08/2010 Lifeng Liu C10-013(119/0113) 2001 101062 7590 03/14/2022 Cognex Corporation One Vision Drive Natick, MA 01760 EXAMINER ITSKOVICH, MIKHAIL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2483 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/14/2022 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): docketing@loginovlaw.com mstevenosky@loginovlaw.com patents.us@cognex.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte LIFENG LIU, AARON S. WALLACK, and CYRIL C. MARRION JR. ________________ Appeal 2021-000562 Application 12/963,007 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 14-24.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. INVENTION The invention relates to finding feature correspondence between 3D images of one or more objects in a scene acquired by a plurality of cameras. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 7 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Cognex Corporation is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 2 Claims 2, 8, and 11-13 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 4, 28, 29. Appeal 2021-000562 Application 12/963,007 2 7. A 3D vision system for determining a 3D pose of an object during runtime operation comprising: a first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly and a second telecentric non-perspective camera assembly that respectively acquire a first non-perspective image and a second non-perspective image of the object contemporaneously; and a searching tool that searches for 2D model features in the first non-perspective image using a first model and that searches for 2D model features in the second non-perspective image using a second model that is a descendant of the first model and is derived from an affine transform applied to the first model using 2D model features in the first non-perspective image acquired by the first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly, wherein the affine transform is based on at least a subset of the intrinsics and extrinsics associated with the first non-perspective camera assembly, the extrinsics comprising at least a pose of the first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly and the intrinsics comprising at least a pixel scale of the first telecentric non- perspective camera, the 3D pose determined by: (a) a mapping between 3D model points to locations of the searched 2D model features in each of the first non-perspective image that correspond to rays passing in parallel through a first telecentric non-perspective lens of the first telecentric non- perspective camera assembly, and (b) a mapping between 3D model points to locations of the 2D model features in the second non-perspective image that correspond to rays passing in parallel through a second telecentric non-perspective lens of the second telecentric non- perspective camera assembly. Appeal Br. 28-29 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added). Appeal 2021-000562 Application 12/963,007 3 REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, and 14-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Wallack4, Davison5, and Kalnajs.6 Final Act. 6-16. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Wallack teaches search tools registering patterns transformed by three degrees of freedom, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a second model that is a descendant of the first model and is derived from an affine transform applied to the first model using 2D model features in the first non-perspective image acquired by the first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly” recited in claim 7. Ans. 4-5 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, Fig. 3; Spec. ¶ 12); Final Act. 8-9 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, Fig. 3; Spec. ¶ 12). Appellant argues the closest teaching of Wallack discusses each planar image pattern 314 and 322 is a 3D rotated version of corresponding models 334 and 342, which are affine transformations, but Wallack fails to teach “a second model that is a descendant of the first model and is derived from an affine transform applied to the first model using 2D model features in the first non-perspective image acquired by the first telecentric non- perspective camera assembly” recited in claim 7. Appeal Br. 14-16 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 13, 35, Fig. 3); Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Wallack ¶ 35). We agree with Appellant. 3 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been withdrawn. Final Act. 2. 4 US 2008/0298672 Al; published Dec. 4, 2008 5 US 6,516,099 Bl; issued Feb. 4, 2003 6 US 5,880,772; issued Mar. 9, 1999 Appeal 2021-000562 Application 12/963,007 4 The cited portions of Wallack merely teach affine transformations. Ans. 4-5 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, Fig. 3); Final Act. 8-9 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, Fig. 3). Figure 3 of Wallack is reproduced below. Figure 3 of Wallack, shown above, illustrates each planar image pattern 314 and 322 is a 3D rotated version of corresponding models 334 and 342, which are affine transformations. See Wallack ¶ 35, Fig. 3. However, there is not descendent relationship illustrated between models 334 and 342 in the cited portions of Wallack. Instead, Wallack states “each depicted planar image pattern . . . appears as an affine transformation of the model.” Wallack ¶ 35. Stated another way, the cited portions of Wallack fail to teach “a second model [1] that is a descendant of the first model and [2] is derived from an affine transform applied to the first model using 2D model features in the first non-perspective image acquired by the first telecentric non- perspective camera assembly” (emphases and bracketing with numbers added) recited in claim 7. Appeal Br. 14-16 (citing Wallack ¶¶ 4, 5, 10, 13, Appeal 2021-000562 Application 12/963,007 5 35, Fig. 3); Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Wallack ¶ 35). Even if a skilled artisan interprets Wallack’s image pattern 314 as teaching the claimed “first model” and Wallack’s model 334 as teaching the claimed “second model,” this interpretation fails because Wallack’s image pattern 314 and model 334 come from the same camera (i.e., Wallack’s camera 110), whereas claim 7 requires the first image to be acquired from “a first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly” and a second image to be acquired from “a second telecentric non-perspective camera assembly.” Appellant also argues Wallack does not teach the claim 7 limitation “a first telecentric non-perspective camera assembly and a second telecentric non- perspective camera assembly that respectively acquire a first non- perspective image and a second non-perspective image of the object contemporaneously.” Appeal Br. 11-14. Independent claims 1, 7, 16, and 21 recite similar features. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 7, 16, and 21; and (2) dependent claims 3-6, 9, 10, 14-15, 17-20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. CONCLUSION REVERSED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 14-24 Wallack, Davison, Kalnajs 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 14-24