Xerox Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 10, 2021

2020002926 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2021)

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. 14/848,402 09/09/2015 Michael J. Wilsher 1776-0736 8830 76360 7590 08/10/2021 MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK LLP ONE INDIANA SQUARE SUITE 2200 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204 EXAMINER PIERRE LOUIS, ANDRE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2127 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/10/2021 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MICHAEL J. WILSHER Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 Technology Center 2100 Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC B. CHEN, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. 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 Xerox Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “identifying potential defects in components within an object based on three-dimensional sensor data of the exterior of the object.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 12–15, 17, and 18 are pending; claims 1 and 12 are independent. Appeal Br. 14–19. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphasis added): 1. A method for structural analysis comprising: generating with a three-dimensional sensor surface scan data of an exterior surface of an object; generating with a processor a physical object model of the exterior surface of the object with reference to the surface scan data of the object; aligning with the processor a first portion of the generated physical object model that corresponds to a first feature on the exterior surface of the object with the first feature on a surface of a predetermined three-dimensional model of the object in a three- dimensional virtual environment; identifying with the processor an interference between a second portion of the physical object model that corresponds to a damaged region of the exterior surface of the object that deviates from the surface of the predetermined threedimensional model and a volume occupied by an internal component in the predetermined threedimensional model, the internal component not being present in the sensor surface scan data of the exterior surface of the object; and generating with an output device an indicator of expected damage to an internal component within the object that corresponds to the internal component in the predetermined three-dimensional model in response to the identification of the interference. Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Turner US 2009/0248323 A1 Oct. 1, 2009 Faure et al., ImageBased Collision Detection and Response Between Arbitrary Volume Objects, Eurographics/ACM SIGGRAPH Symp. on Comp. Animat. (2008) Kus, Implementation of 3D Optical Scanning Technology for Automotive Applications, 9 Sensors 1967–1979 (2009) Nassiopoulos et al., Finite Element Dynamic Simulation of Whole Rallying Car Structure : Towards Better Understanding of Structural Dynamics During Side Impacts, 8th Euro. LS-DYNA Users Conf., Strasbourg (May 2011) Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Turner, Nassiopoulos, and Faure. Final Act. 4. Claims 2–4 and 13–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious in view of Turner, Nassiopoulos, Faure, and Kus. Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error, because “no interference between a model derived from scan data of an object and a volume of a predetermined three-dimensional model is taught or suggested.” Reply Br. 5; see Appeal Br. 11. Appellant asserts “[t]he final Office Action admits the proposed combination of Turner and Nassiopoulos does not disclose the interference identification required by claim 1,” and contends Faure does not make up for these deficiencies. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that “Faure has no physical object model” and “the models of Faure show nothing of the internal structure of an object.” Id. Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 4 We are persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. The Examiner finds that “the combination of Turner, Nassiopoulos, and Faure clearly render[s] obvious the claimed limitations.” Ans. 8. Particularly, the Examiner relies on the teachings of Faure: Faure, cited and used as a third reference in the rejection, clearly provides for the identifying step of the claim. . . . [Faure’s] simulation of damages to the model would clearly show some interference between the physical and the damaged simulated model, as they get in contact in which a deviation is ascertained after collusion, and that Faure collision detection would clearly provide such interference identification as the objects collided and cause damages to the internal component. Ans. 7, 8 (citing Faure §§ 3.1, 5). Faure, however, merely models a collision between two animated, virtual objects, so that “a pair of contact pixels is created.” Faure § 3.1, ¶¶ 1, 2. We agree with Appellant that “the models of Faure show nothing of the internal structure of an object,” such that the reference does not teach an interference with a “volume occupied by an internal component” as required by claim 1 and consistent with how the claim is interpreted in view of the Specification. Appeal Br. 10; see Spec. ¶ 18 (“As used herein, the term ‘interference’ refers to a physical relationship between a surface of an object from a physical object model and an internal component.”). Nor does Faure teach identifying an interference, as required by the claim—Faure’s system, for animating objects, creates the collision rather than identifying aspects of the object. See Appeal Br. 10; Faure § 3.2, ¶ 1 (“At each time step, the polygons of the intersection surfaces are rendered.”). Accordingly, we find the Examiner errs in relying on Faure for teaching the disputed limitations. Moreover, to the extent the Examiner relies on the combination of references to teach or suggest the disputed limitations, we find the record Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 5 before us lacks sufficient articulated reasoning to show one of ordinary skill would combine Faure’s animation modelling with Turner’s object analysis teachings and Nassiopoulos’s vehicle impact simulation teachings. See Turner ¶ 31 (“an exemplary laser-ultrasound based inspection system 30 for scanning, e.g., composite parts”); Nassiopoulos § 3.2 (“Two more simulations were conducted. This was to better understand the benefit that attaching the seats would bring in the case of an accident and assess the potential of such an attachment”); Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not explained, absent impermissible hindsight, “why would [an artisan of ordinary skill] modify the finite element system of [Nassiopoulos] with the teachings of Faure and why would [the artisan] use animated physical object models to modify a visual inspection system reliant on physical scan data of an object as taught by Turner?” Appeal Br. 11. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007) (“[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art,” and a “factfinder . . . must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning.”). Accordingly, we find the proffered combination of cited references does not render the limitations of claim 1 obvious, or the limitations of claim 12, which are rejected over the same grounds. See Final Act. 4. We reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 12, and the rejections of the claims dependent thereon. Appeal 2020-002926 Application 14/848,402 6 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18 103 Turner, Nassiopoulos, Faure 1, 6, 7, 12, 17, 18 2–4, 13–15 103 Turner, Nassiopoulos, Faure, Kus 2–4, 13–15 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6, 7, 12–15, 17, 18 REVERSED