Ex Parte Mattila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2017

14157984 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017)

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.
14/157,984 01/17/2014 Ville-Veikko MATTILA P7666US00 8392
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P.C.
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/25/2017 EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIMBINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2017 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VILLE-VEIKKO MATTILA and MATEI STROILA
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
Technology Center 2600
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from Final
Rejection of Claims 1—20. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 21—48 have been canceled. Claims App’x.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 25, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed October 25, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 25, 2016 (“Ans.”).
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
3 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for evaluating
environmental structures for in-situ content augmentation. See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’
invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized and some
formatting added:
1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/or
processing, by a processor, (1) data and/or (2) information and/or
(3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or
(3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following:
at least one determination of three-dimensional mesh data
associated with one or more object surfaces depicted in at least
one image;
a processing of the three-dimensional mesh data, the at
least one image, or a combination thereof to determine one or
more surface features of the one or more object surfaces; and
at least one determination of at least one score indicating
a suitability for in-situ augmentation of the one or more object
surfaces with at least one content presentation based, at least in
part, on the one or more surface features.
References
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Tatzgem, et al, US 2012/0075433 A1 Mar. 29, 2012
Wagner, et al., US 2014/0267397 Al Sept. 18, 2014
Bunnun, et al., In-Situ Interactive Image-Based Model Building for
Augmented Reality from a Handheld Device, Virtual Reality, 2012.
2
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2—A.
2. Claims 1, 4, 6—11, 14, and 16—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Wagner and Tatzgem. Final Act. 5—10.
3. Claims 2, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Wagner, Tatzgem, and Bunnun. Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—20 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellants’
arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 4—14,
and in the Reply Brief, pages 2—5.
Claims 1-10: Non-Statutory Subject Matter
The Supreme Court has set forth an analytical “framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.
Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to “determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts,” and if so, consider the elements of the claims “individually and
‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). The second step
3
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’— i.e., an element or combination of
elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id.
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
Patent-ineligible concept.
Appellants contend the instant application and claims include
physical features to place them outside the realm of abstraction. App. Br. 6—
7.4 Appellants argue the instant application requires a specific computer to
create meshes. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants, the instant application
is directed to selecting content to be presented on features of objects. App.
Br. 6.
The Examiner finds the method of Claim 1 is directed to the concept
of processing data through mathematical relationships to determine a score
indicating suitability for in-situ augmentation of object surfaces with
content. Ans. 3. The Examiner has not set forth with sufficient specificity,
why claim 1 is drawn to an abstract idea of processing data related to a
surface of a geometrical object to determine whether the object surface is
suitable for modification with content. Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that the claims amount to significantly more than an
abstract idea. Reply Br. 4. Appellants assert physical features such as
“processors,” “objects,” “meshes,” “surface features,” “content
4 We note Appellants inadvertently mischaracterize Claim 1 as directed to a
method to create a social network for patient support to track adherence to
treatments. App. Br. 5.
4
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
presentation,” and “scores” are recited in the claims. App. Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellants argue that Claim 1 requires the processor to perform
processing of the three-dimensional mesh data, the at least one image, or a
combination thereof, to determine one or more surface features of the one or
more object surfaces. Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, the claims are
“an innovation and improvement in computer technology, namely a manner
for calculating visual features for at least one object surface within an
environment to determine its suitability for in-situ augmentation with at least
one content presentation.” Reply Br. 4.
The Examiner finds the “processor,” recited in the preamble of Claim
1 is not accorded patentable weight. Ans. 4. Regardless of whether the
recited processor is accorded patentable weight, the recited processor is a
generic computer component performing its most basic function, repetitive
calculations. See Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed.
Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is
employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive
calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of
those claims.”). Accordingly, the recited processor does not impose
meaningful limits on the scope of the claim.
Nevertheless, the Examiner has not sufficiently addressed Appellants’
contention that because the claimed invention creates meshes and provides
presentation of content on various surface features based on mesh
information (App. Br. 6), it is not directed to abstract idea. Thus, we
conclude the Examiner has not shown Claim 1 is not a patent eligible
application.
5
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
Claims 1,4,6-11,14, and 16-20: Obviousness over Wagner and
Tatzgern
Appellants argue Claims 1, 4, 6—11, and 16—20 as a group in view of
the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 8.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “at least one determination of at least one
score indicating a suitability for in-situ augmentation of the one or more
object surfaces with at least one content presentation based, at least in part,
on the one or more surface features.” Appellants contend the combination of
Wagner and Tatzgern does not teach this limitation. App. Br. 8—11.
Surface features.
Appellants argue the feature points of Wagner do not relate to the
recited surface features. App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, the feature
points of Wagner are points of the planar target followed based on the
movement of the camera. App. Br. 9. Appellants contend Wagner teaches
an object with limits, but not characteristics of a surface. App. Br. 10.
According to Appellants, Wagner teaches the object as “approximately flat
with a two-dimensional surface.” App. Br. 10 (quoting Wagner 130).
The Examiner finds the feature points of Wagner are associated with a
target and more specifically, that the feature points are associated with a
planar target. Ans. 7 (citing Wagner 126). The Examiner explains that
Wagner illustrates surface features in different views of the planar target.
Ans. 7 (citing Wagner Figs. 4—7, H 49—52).
We agree with the Examiner that the feature points are associated with
features on the planar target used to accurately represent the planar target.
Ans. 7; see Wagner 150 (“[The in-situ target creation module (]ITC[)] can
6
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
accurately triangulate the target features to calculate the area covered by the
planar target in the first and second reference images and the planar target’s
true plane normal in the first and second reference images.”). We further
agree with the Examiner that Wagner teaches estimating from these feature
points associated with features on the planar target the six degrees of
freedom orientation and position from the plane normal and the area covered
by the planar target. Ans. 7; see Wagner Figs. 4—7. Thus, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs.
Score indicating a suitability for in-situ augmentation.
Appellants contend the local scores of quality of Tatzgem are based
on representative elements, different from the feature points of Wagner.
App. Br. 10—11. Appellants argue the representative elements of Tatzgem
relate how information will be presented, like the recited content
presentation. App. Br. 11 (citing Tatzgem 139). According to Appellants,
the score in Tatzgem does not relate to features on the object, but to
placement of the content on the object to evaluate the best layout. App. Br.
11 (citing Tatzgem Abstract).
The Examiner finds Tatzgem teaches that the local scores for quality
involve object features. Ans. 7—8. The Examiner further finds Tatzgem
teaches the selection of the viewpoint with the highest score maintains a
natural up-orientation of an object while simultaneously avoiding
occlusions. Ans. 8 (citing Tatzgem || 125, 128, 129). The Examiner
explains that the movements of the scene elements in Tatzgem can be
constrained to certain surfaces or directions. Ans. 8 (citing Tatzgem 178);
7
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
see Tatzgem 178 (“For example, elements located on a plane are forced to
move on the respective plane.”).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, the local score of quality of
Tatzgem accounts for features of planes onto which representative elements
are displayed such as orientation direction of the plane for natural orientation
of the representative element and size of the plane to avoid occlusions. Ans.
8. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the local score of quality of
Tatzgem is based on the representative elements in addition to the
orientation and size features of planes onto which the representative
elements are displayed. Ans. 8. Therefore, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs. It follows, we are not persuaded the combination of Wagner
and Tatzgem fails to teach ” at least one determination of at least one score
indicating a suitability for in-situ augmentation of the one or more object
surfaces with at least one content presentation based, at least in part, on the
one or more surface features,” as recited in claim 1.
Non-analogous art.
Appellants contend Wagner and Tatzgem are non-analogous art.
App. Br. 11 (citing In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 659 (Fed. Cir. 1992)); Reply
Br. 5. Appellants assert Tatzgem concerns finding the best layout for
augmenting reality and Wagner concerns attempting to best track objects
while moving in augmenting reality. App. Br. 11.
We note Appellants fail to reference In re Klein, the Federal Circuit’s
more recent guidance stating:
Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art: (1)
whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of
the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the
8
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.
In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We are not persuaded the
cited art is from different fields of endeavor. Moreover, Appellants do not
sufficiently persuade us the references are not “reasonably pertinent” to the
claims. A reference is reasonably pertinent if it relates to the same problem.
See Klein, 647 F.3d at 1348. Here, both Wagner and Tatzgem are directed
to optimizing a display. See Wagner | 52; see Tatzgem 139. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded of error.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of Claim 1 and of Claims
6—11, and 16—20, which were not separately argued. App. Br. 12.
9
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
Claims 4 and 14: Obviousness over Wagner and Tatzgern
Appellants first contend that the Examiner errs in rejecting Claims 4
and 14 for the reasons advance in favor of Claim 1. App. Br. 12. Appellants
next contend Tatzgern does not teach “density of the one or more visual
features,” as recited in dependent Claims 4 and 14. App. Br. 12.
Specifically, Appellants argue Tatzgern teaches density of information items
and image clutter. App. Br. 12 (citing Tatzgern | 5).
The Examiner finds Tatzgern teaches density of geographic
information and crowdsourcing of content. Ans. 14. The Examiner explains
geographic information layout is the basis of density associated with the
score. Ans. (citing Tatzgern | 5); see Tatzgern | 5 (“Social AR applications,
which rely on legacy databases, such as geographic information systems, or
crowdsourcing of content, can provide an arbitrary density of information
items for popular subjects or locations.”).
We agree with the Examiner because the geographic information
represents features on a map surface as a visual layout, with density
increasing with overlap of representations. Ans. 14. The Examiner finds
Tatzgern teaches filtering the information encoded in the visualization by
removing redundant elements. Ans. 14 (citing Tatzgern 132). According to
the Examiner, Tatzgern teaches obtaining the best score with the selected
representative elements. Ans. 14 (citing Tatzgern 139).
We agree with the Examiner because these teachings in Tatzgern at
least suggest that the density is adjusted to obtain selected representative
elements from which the score is calculated. Ans. 14. Appellants do not
proffer sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the
10
Appeal 2017-001198
Application 14/157,984
Examiner’s findings. Because Appellants do not address persuasively the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning, we are not persuaded of error.
Claims 2,3,5,12,13, and 15: Obviousness over Wagner, Tatzgern,
andBunnun
Appellants contend Bunnun fails to remedy the alleged deficiencies of
Wagner and Tatzgern in the rejection of Claim 1. App. Br. 14. In view of
the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R.§ 41.50(a)(1).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
11