The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2022

2020006479 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 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. 16/040,381 07/19/2018 Jonathan Wayne Gabrys 15-0973-US-CNT 8695 63759 7590 01/28/2022 DUKE W. YEE YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. P.O. BOX 6669 MCKINNEY, TX 75071 EXAMINER HAJNIK, DANIEL F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/28/2022 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): patentadmin@boeing.com ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JONATHAN WAYNE GABRYS, DAVID WILLIAM BOWEN, ANTHONY MATHEW MONTALBANO, and CHONG CHOI _________________ Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EVANS, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of Claims 26-35 and 37-46. Appeal Br. 14-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed January 27, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 3, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection mailed August 26, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed July 19, 2018 (“Spec.”). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies The Boeing Company, Chicago, Illinois, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE INVENTION. The claims relate to an object management system, an aircraft design system, and a method for managing an object. See Abstract. Claims 26 and 37 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 26, which is reproduced below: 26. An object management system comprising: a model manager having: at least one storage device for storing program code; and at least one processor for processing the program code to: create an avatar representing a human operator; place the avatar in a three-dimensional environment with a model of an object; display the three-dimensional environment with the model of the object and the avatar from a viewpoint relative to the avatar on a display system; identify an interaction between the avatar and the model of the object in real time using information about motions of the human operator detected in real time from a motion capture system; determine whether the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object, wherein the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object if the interaction displaces a portion of the model of the object that is not designed to be movable; and implement the design change in the model of the object in response to determining that the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object, thereby enabling the human operator to make design changes in the model of the object using the avatar. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 3 Prior Art Name3 Reference Date Jayaram US 2002/0123812 A1 Sept. 5, 2002 DeSimone US 2015/0362914 A1 Dec. 17, 2015 Sankar Jayaram et al., Virtual assembly using virtual reality techniques, 29(8) Computer-Aided Design (1997) 575-584. Sangyoon Lee, et al., Affective Property Evaluation of Virtual Product Designs, Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality 2004 March 27-31, Chicago, IL USA. Uma Jayaram, et al., Introducing quantitative analysis methods into virtual environments for real-time and continuous ergonomic evaluations, 57 Computers in Industry (2006) 283-296. REJECTIONS4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 26-28, 33-35, 37-39, and 44-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jayaram’2002. Final Act. 2-9. 2. Claims 29 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jayaram’2002 and Jayaram’2006. Final Act. 10-11. 3. Claims 30, 31, 41, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jayaram’20025 and Lee. Final Act. 11-13. 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. The three Jayaram references are differentiated by reference to their dates of publication. 4 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2. 5 The header of the rejection fails to specify which Jayaram reference is intended. We assume Jayaram’2002 is intended. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 4 4. Claims 32 and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Jayaram’20026 and DeSimone. Final Act. 13-14. ANALYSIS We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). After considering the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error. We add the following primarily for emphasis. CLAIMS 26-28, 33-35, 37-39, AND 44-46: ANTICIPATION BY JAYARAM’2002. Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 26: For the purposes of the present discussion, independent claim 37 recites similar limitations as independent claim 26 and is distinguished from the Jayaram for the reasons explained above. Because claims 27-28, 33-35, 38-39, and 44-46 depend from claims 26 and 37, respectively, they are likewise distinguished from the cited references for at least the same reasons explained above. 6 The header of the rejection fails to specify which Jayaram reference is intended. We assume Jayaram’2002 is intended. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 5 Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 102 rejections on the basis of Claim 26, which we designate as representative, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Independent Claim 26 recites, inter alia: identify an interaction between the avatar and the model of the object in real time using information about motions of the human operator detected in real time from a motion capture system; determine whether the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object, wherein the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object if the interaction displaces a portion of the model of the object that is not designed to be movable; implement the design change in the model of the object in response to determining that the interaction constitutes a design change in the model of the object, thereby enabling the human operator to make design changes in the model of the object using the avatar. Claim 26. Appeal Br. 14. The Examiner finds Jayaram’2002 discloses: When these tagged parameters are selected for modification in the virtual environment, the modifications are sent back to the CAD system where the 3D model of the virtual part is regenerated using all of the variational and parametric relations. The regenerated 3D model is reloaded from the CAD system into the VAE system for display as a virtual part with the selected modifications in real-time without the user ever having to leave the virtual environment. In this way, quick design changes and “what-if” evaluations during the assembly evaluation process can be performed. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 6 Final Act. 4 (quoting Jayaram’2002, ¶ 18). The Examiner finds an interaction is determined to constitute a design change when the user selects the option to make a parametric modification from a menu. Final Act. 5. Appellant contends Jayaram’2002 fails to disclose displacing a portion of the model of the object that is not designed to be movable, but merely teaches selecting a parameter. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that in Jayaram’2002, an avatar of the user’s hand interacts with a menu to create changes to a model, but fails to teach the avatar interacting with the model, itself. Appeal Br. 8 (citing Jayaram’2002, ¶¶ 18, 27). The Examiner finds the user is able to select from a menu certain parameters to modify, including length, outer diameter, and hole-diameter. Ans. 4 (citing Jayaram’2002, ¶¶ 18, Fig. 6). The Examiner finds Jayaram changes a virtual model by using a virtual hand, based on the motions of a human hand to select the model. Ans. 4-5. Appellant argues: “[i]t is not simply that the model is changed, it is how the model is changed. How Jayaram teaches changing the model is different from that recited in claim 26.” Appeal Br. 8. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 7 Appellant’s Figure 6 depicts an avatar of a human pilot gripping an aircraft flight-stick 316. We agree with Appellant. As shown in Appellant’s Figure 6, virtual hands of an avatar of a human pilot grip a virtual flight-stick 316. See Spec. ¶ 106. As disclosed, the operator moves human left hand (and thus avatar left hand 602) in direction of Arrow 604 and human right hand (thus avatar right hand 502) in direction of Arrow 608. In response, the horizontal member of virtual flight-stick 316 will lengthen in a horizontal direction. See Spec. ¶ 107. This is contrary to the disclosure of Jayaram’2002 which teaches an avatar hand selects parameters from a menu, but does not change a length of the model by direct interaction. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 26-28, 33-35, 37-39, and 44-46. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 8 CLAIMS 29 AND 40: OBVIOUSNESS OVER JAYARAM’2002 AND JAYARAM’2006. Appellant contends Claims 29 and 40 are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 26 and 37, respectively. Appeal Br. 11. The Answer does not separately address the dependent claims. See generally, Ans. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 29 and 40. CLAIMS 30, 31, 41, AND 42: OBVIOUSNESS OVER JAYARAM’2002 AND LEE. Appellant contends Claims 30, 31, 41, and 42 are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 26 and 37, respectively. Appeal Br. 11. The Answer does not separately address the dependent claims. See generally, Ans. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 30, 31, 41, and 42. CLAIMS 32 AND 43: OBVIOUSNESS OVER JAYARAM’2002 AND DESIMONE. Appellant contends Claims 32 and 43 are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 26 and 37, respectively. Appeal Br. 11-12. The Answer does not separately address the dependent claims. See generally, Ans. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 32 and 43. Appeal 2020-006479 Application 16/040,381 9 DECISION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 26-28, 33- 35, 37-39, 44-46 102(a)(1) Jayaram’2002 26-28, 33-35, 37-39, 44-46 29, 40 103 Jayaram’2002 Jayaram’2006 29, 40 30, 31, 41, 42 103 Jayaram’2002, Lee 30, 31, 41, 42 32, 43 103 Jayaram’2002, DeSimone 32, 43 Overall Outcome: 26-35, 37-46 REVERSED