DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 10, filed 19 September 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) and Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) do not teach wherein the second predetermined number is a number of three-dimensional images to be displayed simultaneously on a display, or wherein the second predetermined number is a number of three-dimensional images excluding those unsuitable for display (page 8). Hickman discloses 3D object data model generation performs smoothing and decimation operations and comparing the last set of mesh data that satisfies the threshold may be stored as the 3D object model (column 13, lines 52 – 63), and wherein compressed copy of the 3D object data model file may be stored in a database 106 in a server 104 or a client device 124, and decompressing the compressed 3D object data model file for display on a web page (column 7, lines 19 – 34). The last set of 3D mesh data is the second predetermined number that is stored and eventually displayed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 recite “wherein the second predetermined number is . . . a number of three-dimensional images excluding those unsuitable for display” in addition to “display the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images”. Given that the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images is displayed using the clause that the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images excluding those unsuitable for display are not displayed, the claims would not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to make use of the invention to exclude three-dimensional images that are not displayed and to also display these excluded three-dimensional images from displaying. Therefore claims 1 – 3 and 5- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for not being enabled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853).
Regarding independent claim 1, Kawasaki teaches an information processing apparatus (Claim 36) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and
at least one first processor configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 42, 108: computer having at least one processor) to:
obtain an image set including a plurality of images in which a subject is captured (Claim 36: an image set obtaining section that obtains a plurality of image sets by repeating the capturing of the image while changing a position of said target object);
store a plurality of image sets (Figure 6: Image set of the target object at the various positions are stored as data 6-1, 6-2, 6-3);
select a first predetermined number of images from across the plurality of image sets (Claim 36: a 3D coordinate estimating section that estimates 3D coordinates representing a surface of said target object from the respective obtained image sets therefrom by determining data of a directions from said image capturing device and said projector to a point on said target object using said image sets as the input when said image sets are captured); and
generate a three-dimensional image of the subject on the basis of the first predetermined number of images (Claim 36: a 3D coordinate estimating section that estimates 3D coordinates representing a surface of said target object from the respective obtained image sets therefrom by determining data of a directions from said image capturing device and said projector to a point on said target object using said image sets as the input when said image sets are captured);
<reordered> wherein the obtaining the image set and the generating the three-dimensional image are performed at least partially in parallel (paragraph 111: difficulties of constructing a construction of the entire shape of a target object can be reduced achieved by measuring the object from a plurality of directions and reconstructing it at the same time; paragraph 59: "simultaneous 3D reconstruction" means the process of camera parameter estimation and 3D reconstruction simultaneously using inputs of multiple views);
at least one second processor that is configured to execute the instructions (paragraph 42, 108: computer having at least one processor) to:
store a plurality of three-dimensional image sets including a plurality of three-dimensional images (Figure 6: Data set of the 3D positions of the correspondence points of the target object at the various positions 6-11, 6-12, 6-13);
select a second predetermined number of three-dimensional images from across the plurality of three-dimensional image sets (paragraph 59 and Figures 6 and 12: 3D reconstruction can be performed for each scan using the estimated common parameters 12-9, 12-10, and 12-11).
Kawasaki does not expressly disclose display the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images, wherein the second predetermined number is a number of three-dimensional images to be displayed simultaneously on a display, <or wherein the second predetermined number is a number of three-dimensional images excluding those unsuitable for display> (Rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for not being enabled). Hickman discloses computing device with processor 710 and graphics processing unit 752 (Figure 7), and 3D object data model generation performs smoothing and decimation operations and comparing the last set of mesh data that satisfies the threshold may be stored as the 3D object model (column 13, lines 52 – 63), wherein compressed copy of the 3D object data model file may be stored in a database 106 in a server 104 or a client device 124, and decompressing the compressed 3D object data model file for display on a web page (column 7, lines 19 – 34). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to store compressed copy of the 3D object that satisfied a threshold and to display the satisfied, decompressed 3D object for display. One would be motivated to do so because this would help a user to visualize the high quality 3D representation of the object and to save storage space and bandwidth for transmission.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, claims 9 and 10 are similar in scope as to claim 1, thus the rejections for claim 1 hereinabove are applicable to claims 9 and 10. Kawasaki teaches a non-transitory recording medium on which a computer program that allows a computer to execute an information processing method is recorded (paragraph 42, 108: computer).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose at least one third processor that is configured to execute the instructions to calculate a score corresponding to a predetermined evaluation criterion for each of the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images, wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the instructions to change a display aspect of each of the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images in accordance with the score. Hickman discloses for each set of images of the plurality of sets of images, a respective image-based score based on a prospective three-dimensional (3D) visualization of the object to be generated by a merged output of that set of images, and spatially align given images of a given set of images from the plurality of sets of images to merge the given images, and to determine a respective image-based score for the given set of images based on whether a prospective 3D visualization of the object, to be generated based on the merged images, correctly represent details and structure of the object (column 10, lines 19 – 31). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to score prospective 3D visualization of the captured object that when combined captures the most features and enough features representing the captured object. One would be motivated to do so because this would help reduce the amount of captured images that needs to be processed to generate the 3D representation of the captured object.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) and Ishida et al. (US 2021/0243374).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one first processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the first predetermined number of images in accordance with a processing capability. Ishida discloses the number of viewpoints for polarization images used for processing is set properly on the basis of required accuracy, processing capability of the information processing apparatus 10, time permitted for processing, and the like (paragraph 78). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to perform processing functions on a certain number of images based on the processing capability of the processing apparatus. One would be motivated to do so because this would improve performance and efficiency of the processing apparatus by not processing too many images in a period of time.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) and Sakamoto (US 2020/0408512).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Kawasaki teaches wherein the plurality of images include: texture image indicating a state of a surface of the subject (paragraph 39: we can use the gray code pattern method proposed by Inokuchi [Nonpatent literature 4] (FIG. 8) and we can achieve a point-to-point correspondence by projecting the pattern twice; once for the vertical direction and once for the horizontal direction). Kawasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of images include: an image captured with a sinusoidal pattern in a sinusoidal grating shape projected on the subject; an image captured with a luminance gradient pattern, in which a luminance value changes linearly, projected on the subject, however Kawasaki does disclose images are captured while projecting a plurality of patterns (structured light) to the target object (paragraph 32). Sakamoto discloses projecting a sinusoidal grating phase shift light pattern onto an object (paragraph 47) and luminance slope pattern onto an object (paragraph 109). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to achieve a predictable result of projecting a sinusoidal grating phase shift light pattern onto an object and a luminance slope pattern onto an object as taught by Sakamoto by adding additional light patterns to be projected from the projection device onto the target object of Kawasaki’s system, and the result would have been predictable.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) and Ishida et al. (US 2021/0243374).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the instructions to selects the second predetermined number of three- dimensional images in accordance with a processing capability. Ishida discloses the number of viewpoints for polarization images used for processing is set properly on the basis of required accuracy, processing capability of the information processing apparatus 10, time permitted for processing, and the like (paragraph 78). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to perform processing functions on a certain number of images based on the processing capability of the processing apparatus. One would be motivated to do so because this would improve performance and efficiency of the processing apparatus by not processing too many images in a period of time.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) and Official Notice.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the instructions to display a list of the second predetermined number of three-dimensional images. Examiner takes Official Notice that the concept of a folder containing a list of image files or a program that displays a list of image files are extremely well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system by displaying a list of image files that are taken and that are generated by the image processing functions. One would be motivated to do so because this would allow the users to ascertain the number of image files are captured and generated and to evaluate each of the captured image files and the generated image files.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (US 2009/0097039) in view of Hickman et al. (US 8,436,853) and Zhu et al. (US 2007/0238981).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Kawasaki does not expressly disclose at least one fourth processor that is configured to execute the instructions to detect a selection operation of selecting a part of the second predetermined number of the three-dimensional images, wherein the at least one second processor is configured to execute the instructions to change a display aspect of the three-dimensional image selected by the selection operation. Zhu discloses the tag information may indicate a particular virtual object of the model entering into or existing from the image sequence of the model (e.g., when the visibility of the virtual object is toggled, such as changing from visible to invisible or changing from invisible to visible) (paragraph 97). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (pre-AIA ) or at the time of the effective filing date of the application (AIA ) to modify Kawasaki's system to allow a user to toggle the visibility of each image of the 3D model. One would be motivated to do so because this would help determine which images are more useful or are better quality.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY J CHOW whose telephone number is (571)272-8078. The examiner can normally be reached 11AM-7PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFREY J CHOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights