Jeffrey Voris et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 12, 201914460332 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019) 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. 14/460,332 08/14/2014 Jeffrey Voris DISNEY-0890-US 3732 94468 7590 08/12/2019 DISNEY ENTERPRISES INC. c/o Patent Ingenuity, P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 EXAMINER LAM, ANDREW H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2675 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2019 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@patentingenuity.com ssimpson@patentingenuity.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JEFFREY VORIS, DAVID CRAWFORD, BENJAMIN CHRISTEN, and JORGE ALTED ____________________ Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,3321 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–25. App. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 According to Appellants, Disney Enterprises, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 2 Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim The disclosed invention relates to 3D printer configurations for printing an object based on a 3D digital model. Spec. ¶ 5. Typically, a user scans the object with a scanner, and a 3D model is generated by the scanner itself or a connected computer. Id. However, current scanner accessories typically generate a low resolution model, which causes the printer to print a low quality copy of the object. Id. ¶ 6. Appellants seek to improve the quality of the printed copy by performing object recognition on either the object or the 3D model, and retrieving a high resolution model based upon the recognized object. Id. ¶ 7. Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: scanning an object to generate a first 3D digital model of the object; sending data corresponding to the first 3D digital model to a server that is in communication with a database of 3D digital models of a plurality of objects; receiving a second 3D digital model of the object from the server based upon a matching of the first 3D digital model and the second 3D digital model, the second 3D digital model having a higher resolution of the object than the first 3D digital model; and printing a 3D replica of the object based upon the second 3D digital model. Independent claims 10, 19, and 20 recite limitations commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent claims 2–5 and 11–14 each incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 3 Independent claim 6 recites limitations that do not include the requirement claim 1 of a second 3D digital model having a higher resolution of the object than the first 3D digital model. Claim 6 reads as follows: 6. A method comprising: scanning an object to generate scanned data; sending the scanned data to a server that is in communication with a database of 3D digital models of a plurality of objects; receiving a 3D digital model of the object from the server based upon an object recognition of the object that is determined from the scanned data; and printing a 30 replica of the object based upon the 3D digital model. Independent claims 6, 15, and 21 recite limitations commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 6. Dependent claims 7–9, 16–18, and 22–25 each incorporate the limitations of their respective independent claims. Examiner’s Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Mueller (US 2011/0161056 A1; published June 30, 2011) in view of Carlin (US 2014/0125649 A1; published May 8, 2014). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3–10) in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 6–10). Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ contentions (Ans. 10–12), and the Appellants’ Reply Brief. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 4 Claims 1–5, 10–14 and 19–20 With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Mueller to teach or suggest scanning an object to generate a 3D digital model of the object, and printing a 3D replica of the object. Final Act. 3 (citing Mueller ¶¶ 20, 39). The Examiner determines that Carlin teaches or suggests sending a 3D scene file to a server in communication with a database of 3D models of a plurality of objects. Id. at 4 (citing Carlin ¶ 90). The Examiner further determines that Carlin teaches or suggests receiving a photorealistic image based in part on a second, high resolution 3D digital model of the object from the server. Final Act. 4 (citing Carlin ¶¶ 50–53). The Examiner interprets this teaching or suggestion of Carlin as teaching the limitation of returning a high resolution image from a server to the client device in order to print in high resolution, which the Examiner determines to be lacking in Mueller. Ans. 11. Appellants contend, inter alia, that Carlin teaches, at most, creation of a photorealistic image in which portions of a stand-in 3D model are replaced with portions of a high resolution 3D model, and sending the photorealistic image to the user. App. Br. 7–8. Appellants argue that this does not provide the high resolution 3D model to the user so as to permit the user to print a 3D replica of the model. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend that provision of the 3D model, by itself, to the user would not have been obvious from the combination of Carlin and Mueller, because Carlin “emphasizes strictly prohibiting direct access to higher resolution 3D models by a client device – only the secure server is permitted to store and access such higher resolution 3D models.” App. Br. 6–7. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 5 With respect to claim 1, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Carlin states that a user submits a scene (such as a bathroom interior) having a low-resolution object (such as a sink faucet) to a server; the server replaces the low-resolution generic sink faucet image with a high resolution, branded sink faucet image to create a photorealistic image of the bathroom interior with the branded sink faucet, and sends the photorealistic image to the user. Carlin ¶¶ 42–43. However, as argued by Appellants, Carlin does not teach that a 3D model of a branded sink faucet is to be sent to the user. App. Br. 8. Instead, Carlin states that the 3D models used for replacement of the lower-resolution models are to remain secure on the server so as to prevent the creation of unauthorized copies of the real objects they represent. Carlin ¶ 54. Carlin also states that permitting the 3D models to be downloaded would threaten the security of the 3D model, which may be expensive and proprietary, facilitate unauthorized reversed engineering of the object by a competitor, result in time- and bandwidth-consuming downloads of 3D models if not stored on the server for rendering, and increase the difficulty in ensuring that each 3D model is the current version. Carlin ¶¶ 42–45. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that Carlin, while providing a photorealistic image including high-resolution portions of objects, does not teach or suggest receiving a higher resolution 3D digital model of a submitted lower-resolution image of the object so as to enable printing a 3D replica of the object based on the higher-resolution 3D digital model. Claims 2–5, 10–14 and 19–20 also require a 3D printer to receive or to have been sent a second, higher resolution 3D digital model, and Appellants’ arguments are persuasive with respect to those claims for the same reasons as for claim 1. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 6 Claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25 With respect to claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25, however, the claims do not recite replacement of a lower-resolution model with a higher-resolution model. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments with respect to Carlin’s lack of teaching sending or receiving a higher-resolution model are not persuasive to show error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants additionally argue, with respect to all of the claims, that Carlin teaches, at best, sending or receiving a 2D, not a 3D model. App. Br. 8. The Examiner has stated that Carlin teaches or suggests that “the user may transfer to his own, client, computer the low-resolution stand-in model and texture.” Final Act. 2 (citing Carlin ¶¶ 50–53). Carlin states that the low-resolution model is a 3D model. Carlin ¶¶ 49–50. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that Carlin fails to teach sending or receiving a (low- resolution) 3D model. Furthermore, Appellants admit that users are permitted to freely access these low-resolution models. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments on appeal, i.e., that Carlin does not teach downloading 3D models, and that Carlin teaches away from downloading high-resolution 3D models, are not persuasive. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 10–14, and 19–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–9, 15–18, and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2018-008941 Application 14/460,332 7 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation