Marks, Richard

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 22, 2020

13282369 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 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. 13/282,369 10/26/2011 Richard Marks SONYP022C 4535 16051 7590 10/22/2020 MPG, LLP and SONY 710 Lakeway Drive, Suite 200 Sunnyvale, CA 94085 EXAMINER YANG, ANDREW GUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2619 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/22/2020 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): mpdocket@mpiplaw.com scea_patent_docket@Playstation.Sony.com sonydocket@mpiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte RICHARD MARKS ____________________ Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE In a Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–7, 10–13, and 16–23. Appeal Br. 14. 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 Sony Interactive Entertainment. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 2 CLAIMED INVENTION According to Appellant, “[the] invention relates generally to video image processing, and more particularly to providing a real-time interactive computer environment using a three-dimensional camera.” Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method having access to memory, the method providing a real-time three-dimensional interactive environment, comprising the operations of: obtaining depth values indicating distances from one or more physical objects in a physical scene to a depth sensing device, the depth sensing device being maintained at a particular depth range defined by a plane that is substantially perpendicular to a view direction of the depth sensing device, so that objects within a field of view of the depth sensing device and between the particular depth range and the depth sensing device are processed by the depth sensing device, and objects within the field of view and beyond the particular depth range are not visible to, nor processed by, the depth sensing device, wherein depth values of surfaces of objects within the field of view and placed through the particular depth range toward, and unobstructed to, the depth sensing device are provided by the depth sensing device, and depth values of surfaces of objects within the field of view placed beyond the particular depth range that are unobstructed to the depth sensing device are not provided by the depth sensing device, wherein the objects placed through the particular depth range are rendered and displayed in a virtual scene based on geometric characteristics of the object itself; wherein the depth sensing device captures depth values for pixels of the scene corresponding to surfaces placed through the particular depth range and towards the depth sensing device, and wherein the depth sensing device does not capture depth values for pixels of the scene corresponding to surfaces that are beyond the particular depth range; initiating Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 3 tracking of the objects when the objects are placed through the particular depth range and toward the depth sensing device, and terminating tracking of the objects when the objects are placed beyond the particular depth range; initiating tracking of the objects when the objects are placed through the particular depth range and toward the depth sensing device, and terminating tracking of the objects when the objects are placed beyond the particular depth range. REFERENCES Nguyen US 6,072,494 June 6, 2000 Kanade US 6,159,009 Nov. 21, 2000 Woodfill US 6,215,898 B1 Apr. 10, 2001 Hildreth US 2002/0041327 A1 Apr. 11, 2002 Williamson US 2002/0158873 A1 Oct. 31, 2002 Nafis US 6,519,359 B1 Feb. 11, 2003 Wilson US 2004/0189720 A1 Sept. 30, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, and Nguyen. Final Act. 2. Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Woodfill. Final Act. 11. Claims 6, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Williamson. Final Act. 12. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Kanade. Final Act. 13. Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 4 ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the limitation of “objects within the field of view and beyond the particular depth range are not visible to, nor processed by, the depth sensing device” which is recited in claims 1, 7, and 13, and incorporated through dependency in claims 4–6, 10–12, and 16–23. Appeal Br. 12–13, Claim Appendix. The Examiner finds that Nafis and Hildreth each teach or suggest this limitation. Final Act. 5–7. In Nafis, the Examiner relies on the embodiment of Figure 7. Final Act. 7. The Examiner explains that Nafis discloses front and rear planes for scanning objects, where the front plane establishes where the scanning should start, and the rear plane establishes where the scanning should end. Id. The Examiner finds that Figure 7 shows that a background object within range camera 10’s field of view, but behind a rear plane setting, is not visible to, nor processed, by range camera 10. Id. We disagree. For the embodiment of Figure 7, Nafis discloses that it is preferable to use overlapping field of views “to capture some of the background object as context for Objects A and B.” Nafis, 7:24–29. Although the Examiner finds that this disclosure does not teach that the background object would be visible and processed by Nafis’s depth sensing device, the Examiner does not explain why. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner further finds that lines 9–17 of column 7 of Nafis teach the involved limitation, but those cited lines are part of the same paragraph that describes capturing some of the background object as context for Object A and B. Nafis, 7:1–29. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how lines 9–17 of column 7 would describe the limitation at issue when lines 24– Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 5 29 of the same paragraph disclose capturing some of the background object. Ans. 4–5. Thus, the Examiner has not established that Nafis teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. The Examiner finds that Figure 3 and paragraph 88 of Hildreth also teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 5. Figure 3 illustrates cameras 301 and 302, fields of view 104, 304, and 305, and potentially detectable objects 307. Hildreth, Fig. 3. Paragraph 88 discloses that “[o]bjects 307 within the overall field of view 104 have the potential to be detected, as a whole or in parts, by all the cameras 301, 302.” Id. ¶ 88. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the disclosure in paragraph 88 and the illustration of Figure 3 teach or suggest that any of objects 307 in Figure 3 are not visible to, nor processed by, the depth sensing device. Final Act. 5. Thus, we do not find that the Examiner has shown that Hildreth teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19–21. Regarding the rejections of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22, and 23, the Examiner does not rely on Woodfill, Williamson, or Kanade to cure the deficiency of the rejection noted above. Final Act. 11–16. Thus, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 11, 12, 17, 18, 22, and 23. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19– 21 103(a) Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, and Nguyen 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19– 21 Appeal 2019-003124 Application 13/282,369 6 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 5, 11, 17 103(a) Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Woodfill 5, 11, 17 6, 12, 18 103(a) Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Williamson 6, 12, 18 22, 23 103(a) Wilson, Hildreth, Nafis, Nguyen, and Kanade 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1, 4–7, 10– 13, 16–23 REVERSED