Sumner, Robert et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 9, 201915157161 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 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. 15/157,161 05/17/2016 Robert Sumner 062854-0969963- P15192US 6953 94474 7590 12/09/2019 LUCASFILM ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY LTD. c/o KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON, LLP Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER WU, YANNA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2611 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2019 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT SUMNER, XU XIANGHAO, STELIAN COROS, and MUBBASIR TURAB KAPADIA ____________ Appeal 2019-0001871 Application 15/157,161 Technology Center 2600 _______________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending in the application. Appeal Br. 18–22 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed October 8, 2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 6, 2018 (“Ans.”); the Final Office Action mailed September 14, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed May 17, 2016 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a method and system for generating “precomputed environment semantics for contact-rich character animation” to “identify[] locations in a virtual environment where a motion sequence [(e.g., a stunt)] can be performed by an animated character.” Spec. ¶ 3, Title (capitalization altered). Appellant’s invention identifies locations in a virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by the animated character by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that match surface contact locations in the motion sequence. Spec. ¶ 3. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of identifying locations in a virtual environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an animated character, the method comprising: accessing the motion sequence for the animated character performed in a first environment; identifying a plurality of contact locations in the motion sequence where the animated character contacts surfaces in the first environment; accessing the virtual environment comprising a plurality of surfaces; identifying the locations in the virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by the animated character by identifying surfaces in the plurality of surfaces that match the plurality of contact locations in the first environment; and annotating the locations in the virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by the animated character. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 3 Evidence Considered Name Reference Date Gueziec et al. (“Gueziec”) US 6,452,596 B1 Sept. 17, 2002 Sterchi et al. (“Sterchi”) US 2014/0035932 A1 Feb. 6, 2014 Hodgins et al. (“Hodgins”) US 8,988,422 B1 Mar. 24, 2015 Kruglick US 2016/0121214 A1 May 5, 2016 Kim et al. (“Kim”) US 2016/0366396 A1 Dec. 15, 2016 Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 2017/0084077 A1 Mar. 23, 2017 Nancy M. Amato, et al. (“Amato”) Choosing Good Distance Metrics and Local Planners for Probabilistic Roadmap Methods, Proceedings of the IEEE Int’l Conference on Robotics & Automation (ICRA), 630–637 May 1998 Joel Chestnutt, et al. (“Chestnutt”) Planning Biped Navigation Strategies in Complex Environments, Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE, Int’l Conference on Humanoid Robotics (Humanoids 2003) 1–16 Sept. 2003 Jianyuan Min, et al. (“Min”) Interactive Generation of Human Animation with Deformable Motion Models, ACM Transactions on Graphics, Vol. 29, No. 1, Article 9, 1–12 Dec. 2009 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1, 9, 13, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, and Sterchi. Final Act. 3–10. Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 4 (2) Claims 5–8, 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and Min. Final Act. 10–14. (3) Claims 2–4 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and Amato. Final Act. 15–18. (4) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Kim, and Hodgins. Final Act. 18–21. (5) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, and Liu. Final Act. 21–22. (6) Claims 12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Liu, and Gueziec. Final Act. 22–24. ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Kruglick and Chestnutt teaches: (1) “identifying a plurality of contact locations in the motion sequence where the animated character contacts surfaces in the first environment;” and (2) “identifying the locations in the virtual environment where the motion sequence can be performed by the animated character by identifying surfaces in the plurality of surfaces that match the plurality of contact locations in the first environment,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4–7. Particularly, the Examiner finds Kruglick teaches capturing a motion sequence performed by a character in an environment and “identifying a plurality of positions in the motion sequence Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 5 where the animated character contacts in[sic] the first environment,” such as the positions of tracking points 104 tracking hand movements, these “positions . . . represent[ing] the contact positions of [the] character with the environment.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Kruglick Fig. 1). The Examiner acknowledges “Kruglick . . . fails to explicitly teach: locations and contact locations as claimed” but asserts “Chestnutt teaches: movement data are represented by contact locations that a character contacts surfaces in an environment,” such as “how the [robot’s] foot rest[s] on the surface in an environment.” Final Act. 5–6 (citing Chestnutt 3:1–6, 4:1–6); see also Ans. 4, 6 (citing Chestnutt 3.1, Figs. 2 and 5).3 In particular, the Examiner finds Chestnutt’s “motion sequence for a biped robot[] through obstacle-filled environments” is “represented by surface contact locations in an environment[] (e.g. the footstep location in stairs, as shown in FIG. 5).” Ans. 4. The Examiner then finds Chestnutt identifies locations in multiple environments as recited in claim 1 because “Chestnutt teaches identifying motion sequences (represented by contact locations) a robot performed in real world [and] also teaches identifying and simulating the motion sequences in a simulated environment.” Ans. 11 (citing Chestnutt 4.4); see also Ans. 8 (“[T]he motion sequence performed by a robot [in Chestnutt] is simulated in a computer (virtual) environment”); and Final Act. 6–7. We do not agree. We agree with Appellant that Kruglick and Chestnutt, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest “identifying locations in a virtual 3 The version of the Chestnutt publication of record does not have numbered pages. We count the pages starting from the first page and the subsections of each (as the Examiner has done). Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 6 environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an animated character” by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that match the plurality of contact locations in the motion sequence where the animated character contacts surfaces in the first environment as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–15; see also Reply Br. 3–9 (emphasis added). As Appellant explains, Kruglick only tracks positions of a same point of a character (such as a point at a knee joint, see Kruglick Fig. 1) “which ha[s] nothing to do with contact locations made in the real-world environment,” as “Kruglick does not perform any analysis to identify contact locations between an animated character and any real/virtual environment.” Reply Br. 3–4. For example, “tracking the location of a character’s hand in 3-D space [in Kruglick] is not the same as determining when that character’s hand would make contact with an object in an environment.” Id. at 6. Thus, Kruglick does not teach identifying positions in a motion sequence where a character makes contact with an environment, or identifying surfaces in a second environment (i.e., claimed virtual environment) that match contact locations from a first environment as required by claim 1. Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 6. Chestnutt does not make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Kruglick, as Chestnutt does not teach or suggest identifying locations in a virtual environment where a motion sequence can be performed by an animated character by identifying surfaces in the virtual environment that match the motion sequence’s contact locations in the first environment, as claimed. Appeal Br. 14–15 (emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 5, 7, and 9. As Appellant explains, Chestnutt merely describes simulating a prospective path (e.g., a footpath) that a robot could follow in a real-world Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 7 environment. Appeal. Br. 14. Moreover, Chestnutt’s footpath planning technique is the opposite of what is claimed because Appellant’s “claims recite beginning with a motion sequence that is already defined, then identifying contact locations in that motion sequence” for matching to surfaces in a virtual environment, while “Chestnutt identifies possible contact locations [where the robot could step], then generates a motion sequence from those possible contact locations” and executes the motion sequence by the robot in a real-world environment. Reply Br. 5, 9; see also Appeal. Br. 14. The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious for a skilled artisan to have “applied the animation infrastructure of Kruglick to the footsteps motion sequence of Chestnutt, so the footsteps motion sequence can be performed and simulated in a virtual environment.” Final Act. 6–7. However, the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason based on rational underpinnings to explain why a skilled artisan would have been led to match (1) contact locations in a motion sequence in a first environment to (2) surfaces in another (virtual) environment, to identify locations where the motion sequence can be performed in second (virtual) environment. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”")); In re NuVasive, Inc., 842 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“‘[C]onclusory statements’ alone are insufficient and, instead, the finding must be supported by a ‘reasoned explanation.’” (internal citation omitted)); see also In re Chaganti, 554 Fed.Appx. 917, 922 Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 8 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“It is not enough to say that . . . to do so would ‘have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.’ Such circular reasoning is not sufficient— more is needed to sustain an obviousness rejection.”) As noted by Appellant, “Chestnutt only includes a single environment where surfaces are identified as potential contact points, but no contact locations from another environment are used in this process” and Chestnutt does not suggest “one could import a pre-existing motion sequence with already-identified contact locations and identify locations in the virtual environment where that motion sequence can be performed by matching surfaces with the already-identified contact locations.” Appeal Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 9. Kruglick is similarly deficient, as it only matches starting and ending poses of a character, without regard to an environment. Appeal Br. 15. The Examiner also has not shown that the additional teachings of Sterchi, Min, Amato, Kim, Hodgins, Liu, and Gueziec make up for the above-noted deficiencies of Kruglick and Chestnutt. Thus, for the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 15 argued for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 2–8, 10–14, and 16–20 dependent therefrom. Appeal Br. 10, 13. Because the above-discussed issues are dispositive as to the obviousness rejections of all claims on appeal, we do not reach additional issues raised by Appellant’s arguments as to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal 2019–000187 Application 15/157,161 9 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As such, we reverse the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 13, 15, 20 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi 1, 9, 13, 15, 20 5–8, 14, 17, 18 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Min 5–8, 14, 17, 18 2–4, 16 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Amato 2–4, 16 10 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Kim, Hodgins 10 11 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Liu 11 12, 19 103 Kruglick, Chestnutt, Sterchi, Liu, Gueziec 12, 19 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation