Ex Parte Zimmermann et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 23, 201610899335 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 10/899,335 0712612004 23628 7590 06/27/2016 WOLF GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C. 600 ATLANTIC A VENUE BOSTON, MA 02210-2206 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven Dwain Zimmermann 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. Sl459.71999US02 6673 EXAMINER ANYIKIRE, CHIKAODILI E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2487 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2016 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): Patents_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com WGS_eOfficeAction@WolfGreenfield.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEVEN DWAIN ZIMMERMANN and CHRISTOPHER SHANNON GOURLEY Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 56, 57, and 59-79. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-55, 58, and 80 are canceled. Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Sony Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 We AFFIRM.2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to 3D image modeling in video presentations. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 56, 67, and 75 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 56, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 56. A method of determining the location of an object, the method comprising: receiving an immersive video image of an environment, the immersive video image having been captured with a video image capture system having a wide angle field of view; receiving a user selection indicating a desired viewpoint from the captured immersive video image; perspective correcting a first portion of the captured immersive video image to provide a perspective-corrected viewpoint in response to the user selection; displaying the perspective-corrected viewpoint; and determining the location of an object in the wide angle field of 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 6, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed Oct. 3, 2014, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed Aug. 25, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed Dec. 17, 2013, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed July 26, 2004, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 view by determining a location of edges and a distance to the edges based on the perspective-corrected viewpoint. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Kaye us 5,497,188 Mar. 5, 1996 Miramonti et al. us 5,864,640 Jan.26, 1999 McCutchen us 6,141,034 Oct. 31, 2000 Monroe US 6,545,601 Bl Apr. 8, 2003 The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 56, 57, and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McCutchen and Miramonti. Final Act. 3. 2. Claims 67, 69, and 77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McCutchen, Miramonti, and Kaye. Final Act. 4. 3. Claims 60-66, 75, 76, 78, and 79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McCutchen, Miramonti, and Monroe. Final Act. 5. 4. Claims 68, and 70-74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over McCutchen, Miramonti, Kaye, and Monroe. Final Act. 7. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 56, 57, and 59-79 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. 3 Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 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). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 11-14. CLAIM 56: OBVIOUS OVER MCCUTCHEN AND MIRAMONTI 1A .. ppellants argue all claims as a group and contend they are each patentable in view of the limitations of Claim 56. App. Br. 14. Determining the location of an object in the wide angle field of view Appellants contend the combination of McCutchen, Miramonti, Kaye, and Monroe fails to teach or suggest "determining the location of an object in the wide angle field of view by determining a location of edges and a distance to the edges based on [a] perspective-corrected viewpoint," as recited in independent Claim 56 and similarly recited in independent Claims 67 and 75. Appeal Br. 11. The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by a combination of McCutchen and Miramonti. Final Act 4. The Examiner finds McCutchen determines the location of an object in the wide angle field of view by 4 Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 determining a location of edges and a distance to the edges based on the perspective-corrected viewpoint and Miramonti determines the location of an object by determining a location of edges. Id. Appellants contend that McCutchen merely identifies the "angles and length ratios" for a "cross section of a quarter dodecahedron." According to Appellants, McCutchen's Reference number 40 labels an intersphere radius, the distance from a dodecahedron center to edge of the dodecahedron face. Because McCutchen merely provides geometric labels, the reference cannot teach or suggest, in whole or part, "determining the location of an object in the wide angle field of view by determining a location of edges and a distance to the edges based on [a] perspective-corrected viewpoint," as recited in claim 56. App. Br. 11-12. Appellants concede Miramonti determines the edges of an object, but argue Miramonti has no need to determine the location of an object because the object has already been placed on a rotational platter and digitized. 1A .. pp. Br. 12. The Examiner finds Appellants' argument that Miramonti does not teach determining "a distance to the edges" of the object, impermissibly narrows the scope of the claim language. Claim 56 does not specify that the measured distance is to the edges of the object in the real world. Ans. 8. McCutchen and Miramonti each employ a system that determines the distances to the edges of an image of the object. Specifically, McCutchen focuses on the different perspective viewpoints whereas Miramonti identifies a trackable patch within the image. Miramonti tracks the image patch until the entire edge of the image has been searched. Id. Moreover, McCutchen relates the edges and distance to the edges of the view image when searching for an image. Id. 5 Appeal2015-000439 Application 10/899,335 Appellants' reply that Miramonti concerns the silhouette of a known, target object, whereas the claimed invention recites a method of locating varied objects in a wide angle field of view. Reply Br. 3. Appellants' reading of Miramonti does not persuade us that Miramonti does not relate to an image of an object. Miramonti discloses a system and method that uses the color information from a series of two- dimensional color images to derive the three dimensional location in space of the surface points which produced the color images. Miramonti, col. 2, 11. 19-23. Miramonti teaches a 3-D digital scanner operative to develop a plurality of images of a scanned, three dimensional object. The scanner system includes a digital processor that develops 3-D coordinate positions and related image information for the plurality of surface portions of the object. Id., col. 2, 11. 32--43. Contrary to Appellants' explanation, we read Miramonti as disclosing a 3-D digital scanner that forms images of a scanned, three dimensional object and a digital processor that measures the images to map 3-D coordinate positions of the surface of the object. We are not persuaded the Examiner errs. DECISION The rejection of Claims 56, 57, and 59-79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is AFFIRMED. 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 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation