GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANYDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 31, 20202019004561 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020) 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. 14/577,255 12/19/2014 Ser Nam Lim 272295-US-1 | GERD:1186 8667 41838 7590 12/31/2020 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (Global Research) C/O FLETCHER YODER P. O. BOX 692289 HOUSTON, TX 77269-2289 EXAMINER LIMA, FABIO S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2486 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2020 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@fyiplaw.com rariden@fyiplaw.com robinson@fyiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SER NAM LIM, JOSEPH VINCENT PAWLOWSKI, LI GUAN, YOGESH AGARWAL, BINOD PANDEY, and SRIVATSA DHANVANTRI Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1 and 3–21 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act. 1–2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. See Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 19, 2014; Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed May 31, 2018; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed May 20, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The invention, according to Appellant, generally “relates to a system and method for borescope engine inspection.” Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant’s claims recite optical imaging and processing systems and methods for generating a model using an optical imaging and processing system. The system includes an optical connection with an optical element at its end, such that the optical may extend into a component interior, a photodiode array disposed at the opposite end of the optical connection, such that the optical element may transmit a video stream of the component interior through the optical connection to the photodiode array as the optical element is moved within the component interior. A processor is coupled to the photodiode array, such that the processor may process the video stream to generate a three- dimensional model of the component interior. The processor also may determine identifying features in image frames of the video stream, determine corresponding identifying features between the image frames, correlate the corresponding identifying features between the image frames in order to simultaneously determine relative localization data of the image frames, and locate the corresponding identifying features, based on the relative localization data of the image frames or the corresponding identifying features between the image frames to produce a three- dimensional model. See Spec. ¶¶ 3–5; Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a system), 11 (directed to a method), and 17 (directed to a method) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Nov. 1, 2017; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Mar. 20, 2019. Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 3 1. An optical imaging and processing system, comprising: an optical connection and an optical element disposed at a first end of the optical connection, wherein the first end of the optical connection is configured to extend into a turbine component interior such that the optical element is disposed within the turbine component interior; a photodiode array disposed at a second end of the optical connection, wherein the optical element is configured to transmit a video stream of the turbine component interior through the optical connection to the photodiode array as the optical element is moved within the turbine component interior between multiple vantage points; a processor coupled to the photodiode array, wherein the processor is configured to process the video stream to generate a three-dimensional model of at least a portion of the turbine component interior without utilizing a previously defined three- dimensional model input of the turbine component interior, wherein the processor is further configured to determine identifying features within image frames of the video stream from the multiple vantage points; determine corresponding identifying features between the image frames; correlate the corresponding identifying features between the image frames to simultaneously determine relative localization data of the image frames and the corresponding identifying features between the image frames; and locate the corresponding identifying features, based on the relative localization data of the image frames and/or the corresponding identifying features between the image frames, in a point cloud such that the point cloud forms the three- dimensional model. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Wang et al. (“Wang”) US 2012/0162192 A1 June 28, 2012 Myers et al. (“Myers”) US 6,278,460 B1 Aug. 21, 2001 Soon-Yong Park and Murali Subbarao, A Range Image Refinement Technique for Multi-view 3D Model Reconstruction, Computer Society, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on 3-D Digital Imaging and Modeling (2003) (“Park”). REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–9, and 11–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang and Myers. See Final Act. 4–15. 2. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Myers, and Park. See Final Act. 15–16. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as independent claims 11 and 17, and dependent claims 3–9, 12–16, and 18–21) as being obvious over Wang and Myers. See Final Act. 4–7; Ans. 3–5. Appellant contends that Wang and Myers do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that claim 1 requires “determining the relative localization data . . . simultaneous[ly] with determining the corresponding identifying features” (Appeal Br. 5), but Myers instead describes “that the relative 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 5 localization data of the image frames (i.e. the camera position between image frames) is determined subsequent to, not simultaneously with, the determination of the corresponding identifying features between the image frames” (Appeal Br. 6). See also Appeal Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of Myers (in combination with Wang) do not teach or suggest “simultaneously determin[ing] relative localization data of the image frames and the corresponding identifying features between the image frames” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.); see also id. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–8. As pointed out by Appellant (see Reply Br. 5–8), the Examiner relies on Myers to teach the simultaneous determinations required by claim 1, but the Examiner-cited portions of Myers do not teach simultaneous determination of relative localization data of the image frames (i.e., camera orientation and position data) and corresponding identifying features between the image frames. Myers, instead, teaches a two-step (two pass) process, where camera position information is extracted (during a first pass) and ray casting (based on the camera position) is used to create a model. Myers also describes using a separate ray casting technique to determine the camera position information based on selected image features, but the camera position and identifying features are determined separately not simultaneously. See Myers, col. 2, 1. 57–col. 3, 1. 29; col. 4, ll. 48–52; col. 6, ll. 48–55; col. 9, ll. 15–48. Fig. 3. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Wang and Myers renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 11 and 17 include Appeal 2019-004561 Application 14/577,255 6 limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 3–9, 12–16, and 18–21depend from and stand with claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively. The Examiner rejects dependent claim 10 as being obvious over Wang, Myers, and Park. See Final Act. 15–16. The Examiner does not suggest, and we do not find, that the additional cited reference (Park) cures the deficiencies of Wang in combination with Myers (supra). Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent claim 10 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 3–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 3–21. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3–9, 11–21 103 Wang, Myers 1, 3–9, 11–21 10 103 Wang, Myers, Park 10 Overall Outcome 1, 3–21 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation