Ex Parte WinderDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 6, 201713566796 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2017) 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. 13/566,796 08/03/2012 Simon A. J. Winder 336481.01 1375 69316 7590 03/08/2017 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER YANG, YI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/08/2017 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): u sdocket @ micro soft .com chriochs @microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SIMON A. J. WINDER Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1,5,9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious overFu (US 2011/0304619 Al; Dec. 15, 2011) andBaumberg ’216 (US 2002/0186216 Al; Dec. 12, 2002). Final Act. 2-4. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Baumberg ’452 (US 2005/0052452 Al; Mar. 10, 2005). Final Act. 5. Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Shen (US 2010/0303303 Al; Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 5—6. Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Besl (US 2004/0217956 Al; Nov. 4, 2004). Final Act. 6-7. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Ozdac (US 8,441,482 B2; May 14, 2013). Final Act. 7—8. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Schmidt (US 2013/0257853 Al; Oct. 3, 2013). Final Act. 8—9. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “refining a 3D point cloud or other 3D input model to generate a smoothed and denoised 3D output model.” Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitation emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented process for smoothing 3D models, comprising using a computer to perform process actions for: receiving a set of 3D input points representing a 3D input model; using the set of 3D input points to determine a set of the nearest j neighbors of each input point; for each input point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the point and its set of nearest j neighbors; 2 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 creating a set of 3D output points by projecting each input point onto its corresponding plane; using the set of 3D output points to determine a set of the nearest k neighbors of each output point; for each output point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the point and its set of nearest k neighbors; for each output point, computing a corresponding surface normal from the corresponding plane; and wherein the set of 3D output points and corresponding surface normals represent a smoothed 3D output model. ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 5,9,12, and 16 over Fu and Baumberg ’216 The Examiner finds Fu and Baumberg ’216 teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-4; see also Ans. 9—14. Specifically, the Examiner finds Fu teaches all limitations of claim 1, except for the key disputed limitation, which the Examiner finds is taught by Baumberg ’216. Final Act. 3. The Examiner reasons: “it would [have been] obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify Fu’s [method] to combine 3D smoothing system with projecting each input point as taught by Baumberg [’216] to output 3D image precisely and accurately, reducing processing times.” Final Act. 4. Appellant presents the following principal arguments: 3 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 i. Baumberg does not project input points to a plane fit to each input point and its set of neighbors to create an output point, as claimed. In fact, it should be clear that projecting points to into a 3D space based on point depth values and camera parameters is simply not equivalent or suggestive (either mathematically, conceptually, or grammatically), of fitting a separate plane to each different set of points and then projecting each point to its corresponding plane, as claimed. App. Br. 12. ii. [T]he mere fact that Fu fits planes to points, while Baumberg projects points based on depth maps and camera parameters fails completely to provide any causal or logical link that would suggest to one skilled in the art that it would be obvious to project input points to planes that were created from those input points in order to generate a new set of output points. App. Br. 14. Appellant’s arguments persuade us the Examiner erred in finding Baumberg ’216 teaches the key disputed limitation. We do not agree with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Fu (148) discloses: “The normal of each point in the cloud is estimated by fitting a tangent plane to the neighbors of the point.” Thus, we find Fu describes the recited (claim 1): using the set of 3D [] points to determine a set of the nearest k neighbors of each [] point; for each [] point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the point and its set of nearest k neighbors; for each [] point, computing a corresponding surface normal from the corresponding plane; and wherein the set of 3D [] points and corresponding surface normals represent a smoothed 3D output model. 4 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 However, we recognize that the set of 3D points used to compute the surface normals, when claim 1 is considered as a whole, are a set of 3D output points resulting from a nearest-neighbor filtering operation performed on a set of 3D input points. This relationship is recited in claim 1 (emphasis added): receiving a set of 3D input points representing a 3D input model; using the set of 3D input points to determine a set of the nearest j neighbors of each input point; for each input point, fitting a corresponding plane in 3D space to the point and its set of nearest j neighbors; creating a set of 3D output points by projecting each input point onto its correspondingplane[.\ Fu’s computation of surface normals does not use a set of 3D output points resulting from a nearest-neighbor filtering operation performed on a set of 3D input points to compute the surface normals. Rather, Fu’s computation of surface normal uses the set of 3D input points themselves. See Fu H 46-A8. Further, with regard to Baumberg ’216, we agree with Appellant that Baumberg ’216 does not disclose the key disputed limitation. In the Final Action, the Examiner refers to Baumberg ’216’s projecting of points. See Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196). Baumberg ’216 (196) discloses: “polyhedron generator 3070 projects each vertex of the triangulation into 3D space in dependence upon the depth value of the pixel containing the vertex, the position and orientation of the depth map and the camera parameters defined in the input data.” We do not see, on this record, any explanation of how or why Baumberg ’216’s projecting of points into 3D space projects each vertex onto a corresponding plane as claimed. 5 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 Further, although we recognize that a skilled artisan may desire precise and accurate 3D models (see Final Act. 4), we do not see on this record how or why this general desire (or Baumberg ’216’s projecting of points) would motivate a skilled artisan to modify Fu as proposed by the Examiner, absent the use of impermissible hindsight. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claim 5, which depends from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9, which recites “create a set of 3D output points by projecting each input point onto its corresponding plane,” or of claim 12, which depends from claim 9. See Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196). We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16, which recites “creating a set of output 3D points by projecting each input point onto its corresponding plane along a surface normal of that plane.” See Final Act. 3 (citing Baumberg ’216 196). The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 10 overFu, Baumberg ’216, and Baumberg ’452 Claim 10 depends from claim 9. The Examiner does not find Baumberg ’452 overcomes the deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 5. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4,11, and 18 over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Shen Claims 4, 11, and 18 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and 16. 6 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 The Examiner does not find Shen overcomes the deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 5—6. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2,3, 6,13,17, and 19 over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Besl Claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, and 19 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and 16. The Examiner does not find Besl overcomes the deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 6—7. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 6, 13, 17, and 19. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7,14, and 20 over Fu, Baumberg ’216, AND OZDAC Claims 7, 14, and 20 variously depend from claims 1, 9, and 16. The Examiner does not find Ozdac overcomes the deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 7—8. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7, 14, and 20. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 8 and 15 over Fu, Baumberg ’216, and Schmidt Claims 8 and 15 variously depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively. 7 Appeal 2016-006946 Application 13/566,796 The Examiner does not find Schmidt overcomes the deficiencies of Fu and Baumberg ’216 discussed above. See Final Act. 8—9. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 and 15. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation