Quality Vision International, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 20212019006492 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/164,955 05/26/2016 Edward Tarry Polidor 91604.000324 5383 23387 7590 03/02/2021 IP Practice Group Harter Secrest & Emery LLP 1600 Bausch & Lomb Place Rochester, NY 14604-2711 EXAMINER HILAIRE, CLIFFORD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2488 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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): patent@hselaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte EDWARD TARRY POLIDOR, JEFFREY BLOOD, and DANIEL C. ABBAS Appeal 2019-006492 Application 15/164,955 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 and 17–24. Appeal Br. 1. Claim 16 has been withdrawn from consideration. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Quality Vision International Inc. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-006492 Application 15/164,955 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The claimed subject matter is directed to “3D scanning methods,” using “at least two different but complementary 3D scanning techniques . . . . yielding more accurate, complete 3D point clouds of scanned 3D objects, such as machined parts.” Spec. ¶ 21. Claims 1–15 and 17–24 are pending and rejected; claim 16 is withdrawn. See Appeal Br. 12–16. Independent claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method comprising: (a) scanning surfaces of a three-dimensional object with a first sensor to acquire first data points representative of surfaces that have been scanned with the first sensor, and adding the first data points to a three-dimensional coordinate point cloud; (b) scanning surfaces of the three-dimensional object with a second sensor to acquire second data points representative of surfaces that have been scanned with the second sensor, and adding the second data points to the three-dimensional coordinate point cloud; (c) wherein the first sensor has a lower accuracy and a faster data point acquisition rate than the second sensor, and the second data points are assigned a higher weighting than a weighting assigned to the first data points; and (d) basing the three-dimensional coordinate point cloud on weighted first and second data points. Appeal 2019-006492 Application 15/164,955 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Mueller US 2003/0071194 A1 Apr. 17, 2003 Suliga US 2008/0101678 A1 May 1, 2008 Wang et al., High Resolution Acquisition, Learning and Transfer of Dynamic 3-D Facial Expressions, 2004 (“Wang”). Chekhlov et al., Real-Time and Robust Monocular SLAM Using Predictive Multi-resolution Descriptors, 2006 (“Chekhlov”). Bickel et al., Multi-Scale Capture of Facial Geometry and Motion, July 2007 (“Bickel”). Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang. Final Act. 9. Claims 3, 4, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Bickel. Final Act. 15. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Suliga. Final Act. 17. Claims 10 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mueller. Final Act. 18. Claims 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chekhlov. Final Act. 19. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection is in error because Wang does not disclose “scanning surfaces with first and second sensors” as claimed. Appeal Br. 4 (emphasis omitted). Particularly, Appellant contends “Wang uses . . . high and low resolution meshes to track differences between . . . separate point clouds, not to acquire first and second data points obtained Appeal 2019-006492 Application 15/164,955 4 with first and second sensors having different accuracy and data point acquisition rates.” Id. (emphasis added). We are persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 1 recites scanning an object using a “first sensor [that] has a lower accuracy and a faster data point acquisition rate than the second sensor.” The Examiner finds this limitation disclosed by Wang’s descriptions of a “3D shape being constructed from data coming [from] both cameras” and “scanning of [a] surface into a point cloud for tracking facial motion” (Ans. 18), because Wang’s “scans applied to a face model must occur before the tracking and the different scan captures data-points for an 8K and 1K mesh” (Advisory Act. 2). See Wang Fig. 3. We agree with Appellant that these findings are insufficient to support a rejection under anticipation. See Appeal Br. 4 (“the use of two different cameras in Wang in the 3-D shape acquisition system used to acquire data . . . is irrelevant to the cited high and low resolution face model meshes relied upon in the rejection”). Wang discloses scanning an object using two sensors: a black and white camera and a color camera. See Wang 679, paragraph 5.2 Wang also discloses creating models from the scanned content, including a coarse level “mesh with 1K nodes” and a finer “mesh with 8K nodes.” Wang 678, paragraphs 3–5. Although the Examiner maps these meshes (having differing resolutions) to the claimed difference in accuracies, the Examiner has not explained how the mesh resolutions relate to accuracies of any sensors, such as Wang’s cameras. See Final Act. 15, 16; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 17–20. Nor do we see, on the record before us, any disclosure in Wang 2 We refer to the paragraphs as numbered by the Examiner. Appeal 2019-006492 Application 15/164,955 5 corresponding to the claimed sensor accuracies. We agree with Appellant that processing a scanned image with different resolution meshes, as performed in Wang, is not tantamount to using sensors having different accuracies. See Appeal Br. 5. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited art discloses all limitations of independent claim 1 or the similar limitations of claim 17. See Appeal Br. 17. We do not sustain the rejection of these claims, or the rejections of the claims dependent thereon. DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 102(a)(1) Wang 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 22 3, 4, 11, 19, 20 103 Wang, Bickel 3, 4, 11, 19, 20 8 103 Wang, Suliga 8 10, 23 103 Wang, Mueller 10, 23 15, 24 103 Wang, Chekhlov 15, 24 Overall Outcome 1-15, 17-24 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(1)(iv). REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation