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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 21, “an object” recited in line 12 of the claim should be changed to “the object” since “objects” was previously recited in line 6 of the claim.
As to claim 21, the phrase “the object’s” recited in line 13 of the claim should be changed to “the object.”
As to claim 38, misspelled word “determing” in line 8 should be changed to “determining” . Appropriate correction is required.
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 38-40 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 38, the specification as originally filed does not disclose “generating a 3D point
cloud from the depth measurements and images obtained from different viewpoints, determing a 3D
volume of the object based on the 3D point cloud and a scale determined from one or more of the
projected laser beam by determining locations of points on the object's surface in a plane or a slice using
time-of- flight.”
Claim 39 is rejected based on dependence on claim 38.
As to claim 40, the specification as originally filed does not disclose “a rear-facing camera
assembly mounted on a rear side of the housing and comprising one or more cameras; a light detection
and ranging depth sensor mounted on the rear side of the housing adjacent the rear-facing camera
assembly,… and to output depth data representing distances from the mobile phone to points on one or
more objects in the environment; and non-transitory computer-readable instructions stored in the
memory and executable by the processor to: control the rear-facing camera assembly to capture a
plurality of images of an object from multiple perspectives while the mobile phone is moved relative to
the object”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 38 recites the limitation "the projected laser beam" in line 9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 39 is rejected based on dependence on claim 38.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the housing " in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 40 recites the limitation "the mobile phone " in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “tactile unit to arouse the user” in claim 23.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 24, 31-32 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1).
As to claim 21, Zagorsek teaches a system, comprising:
a mobile device having one or more cameras ([0022]: smartphone;[0064]: camera);
a sensor to detect reflected light from a laser and a diffuser including a laser emitter configured
to project a plurality of pulsed laser beams into the environment ([0039]: time-of-flight camera; [0067]: laser, diffuser) and a time-of-flight detector configured to detect light reflected from the plurality of pulsed laser beams and to output depth measurements for points on one or more objects in the environment ([0039]:time-of-flight camera;[0067-0068]: laser);
code for estimating light and detecting planes and dimensions in an environment based on the laser ([0039]: locations of points on an object's surface in a particular slice can be determined directly (e.g., using a time-of-flight camera);[0042];[0045];[0067]: laser), wherein the code for estimating light and detecting planes and dimensions in the environment is configured to: receive the depth measurements from the sensor and fit planar surfaces and estimate linear dimensions of the object based on the depth measurements and images captured by the one or more cameras ([0039-0040]: locations of points on an object's surface in a particular slice determined (e.g., using a time-of-flight camera);[0058];[0060];[0068]), and to generate a file with images of the object and spatial data ([0039];[0065]: cameras capture images; [0069]: memory stores input and output data; note that pictures taken by cameras are stored as files), but does not explicitly disclose code to determine a three-dimensional (3D) volume of an object from multiple perspectives and from one or more projected laser beams to measure scale and size of the object's.
However, Connor teaches code to estimate a three-dimensional (3D) volume of the object from multiple perspectives ([0122];[0156]: estimate the quantities of specific foods from pictures or images of those foods by volumetric analysis of food from multiple perspectives; [0159]) and from projected laser beams to measure size or scale of the object’s ([0157]: projected laser beams to create a virtual or optical fiduciary marker in order to measure food size or scale).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek with code to determine a three-dimensional (3D) volume of an object from multiple perspectives and from one or more projected laser beams to measure scale and size of the object's a as taught by Connor in order to provide accurate measurement of food consumption.
As to claim 22, Zagorsek teaches the system as discussed above, comprising code to display virtual objects ([0078]: virtual environment displayed), but does not explicitly disclose display real-world objects.
However, Connor teaches display real-world objects ([0219]: augmented reality eyewear;[0229]: augmented reality, superimposed on food.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek with code to display real-world objects as taught by Connor in order to provide accurate feedback to a person.
As to claim 24, Zagorsek in view of Connor teaches the system of claim 21, comprising code to render images with dimension information (Zagorsek, [0036]: analyzing captured images to detect at least one edge of the object, using that information to determine an associated position and/or motion;[0038-0039]: Positions and cross-sections determined for different slices can be correlated to construct a three-dimensional (3D) model of the object, including its position and shape).
As to claim 31, Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the system of claim 21, comprising a
sensor to track motion or capture biofeedback data (Zagorsk, [0044]: determine object’s
motion;[0056]: motion).
As to claim 32, Zagorsk teaches the system as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose comprising a sensor to determine one of: total body water, compartmentalization of body fluids, cardiac monitoring, blood flow, skinfold thickness, dehydration, blood loss, wound monitoring, ulcer detection, deep vein thrombosis, hypovolemia, hemorrhage, blood loss.
However, Conner teaches comprising a sensor to determine one of: total body water, compartmentalization of body fluids, cardiac monitoring, blood flow, skinfold thickness, dehydration, blood loss, wound monitoring, ulcer detection, deep vein thrombosis, hypovolemia, hemorrhage, blood loss ([0173];[0182]: ECG sensor (cardiac monitoring)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk with a sensor to determine one of: total body water, compartmentalization of body fluids, cardiac monitoring, blood flow, skinfold thickness, dehydration, blood loss, wound monitoring, ulcer detection, deep vein thrombosis, hypovolemia, hemorrhage, blood loss as taught by Conner et al. in order to monitor food consumption.
As to claim 37, Zagorsk teaches the system as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose comprising an augmented reality display device or a virtual reality display device.
However, Conner teaches comprising an augmented reality display device or a virtual reality display device ([0219]: augmented reality).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek with an augmented reality display device or a virtual reality display device as taught by Connor in order to monitor food-consumption.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) and further in view of Blumenthal (US 2006/0079732 A1).
As to claim 23, Zagorsek in view of Connor teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose comprising a tactile unit to arouse a user during a selected period.
However, Blumenthal teaches comprising a tactile unit to arouse a user during a selected period ([0054-0055]: the inside surface of the internal bore 51 is formed of an elastic material allowing for radial expansion and contraction depending on the overall width of the body member inserted therein, movie-sequence depicting erotic images which may, for example, mirror actions in response to tactile stimulation of the appliance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek in view of Connor with a tactile unit to arouse the user during a selected period as taught by Blumenthal in order to stimulate the person and give rise to greater strength of his erection.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2016/0328886 A1).
As to claim 25, Zagorsk in view of Conner et al. teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the device displays an avatar.
However, Tong et al. teaches the device displays an avatar ([0012]: avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner et al. by
displaying an avatar as taught by Tong et al. in order to allow users to create custom avatars.
Claims 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) and further in view of Chaouat (US 7463927).
As to claim 6, Zagorsek in view of Connor teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose comprising sensors to detect pain or discomfort.
However, Chaouat teaches sensors to detect pain or discomfort (col. 13, lines 22-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek in view of Connor with sensors to detect pain or discomfort as taught by Chaouat in order to minimize stimulation on undesired regions and provide a level of comfort.
As to claim 27, Zagorsk in view of Conner et al. and Chaouat teaches the system as discussed above, comprising one or more sensors, wherein one of the sensors comprises biofeedback sensor, electromyogram (EMG) sensor, electroencephalography (EEG) sensor, electrophysiological sensor, electrocorticography (ECoG) sensor, magnetoencephalography (MEG) sensor, positron emission tomography (PET) sensor, functional magnetic resonance imaging sensor, optical imaging sensor, functional Near InfraRed (fNIR) sensor (Zagorsk, optical imaging sensor([0064]:camera)).
Claims 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) and further in view of Davis (US 2007/0249891 A1).
As to claim 28, Zagorsk in view of Connor et al. teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a display provides a distraction during a game, an operation, a treatment, a biological sampling, an irradiation process, or a body scan.
However, Davis teaches wherein a display provides a distraction during a game, an operation, a treatment, a biological sampling, an irradiation process, or a body scan ([0005]: patient is more likely to be thinking about the reading material or visual display than dreading the doctor's examination, and listening to the dentist's drill, etc. This distraction is of benefit to the health care practitioner and the health care assistant as well as the patient, since it enhances the patient's comfort level and permits the examination or treatment to go more smoothly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device Zagorsk in view of Connor et al. with a display that provides a distraction during a game, an operation, a treatment, a biological sampling, an irradiation process, or a body scan as taught by Davis et al. in order to enhances the patient's comfort level and permits the examination or treatment to go more smoothly.
Claims 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) and further in view of Giap et al. (US 2015/0306340 A1).
As to claim 29, Zagorsk teaches the system as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose sense biometric and physical conditions of the user.
However, Conner et al. teaches sense biometric and physical conditions of the user ([0173];[0182]: skin response sensor, EMG sensor EEG sensor, ECG sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk by sensing biometric and physical
conditions of the user as taught by Conner et al. in order to monitor food consumption.
Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the system as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose comprising code to: position a user in a targeted area; and keep the user in a predetermined position with a game or video.
However, Giap et al. teaches comprising code ([0013-0014]) to: position the user in a targeted area ([0021]); sense biometric and physical conditions of the user (Abstract; [0025]), and keep the user in a predetermined position with a game or video ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner by positioning the user in a targeted area, and keeping the user in a predetermined position with a game or video during medical mission as taught by Giap et al. in order to improve efficacy of a medical mission.
Claim 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) in view of Allen et al. (US 2017/0053073 A1).
As to claim 30, Zagorsk in view of Connor teaches the system as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the mobile device shares images of a procedure with a user.
However, Allen et al. teaches wherein the mobile device shares images of a procedure with a user ([0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Connor such that the mobile device shares images of a procedure with a user as taught by Allen et al. in order to provide wound treatment.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) in view of Zurek et al. (US 2014/0350924 A1).
As to claim 33, Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the system of claim 21, comprising code to perform gesture recognition (Zagorsk, [0054];[0056]: gesture), but does not explicitly disclose facial recognition and voice recognition.
However, Zurek et al. teaches facial recognition and voice recognition ([0026]: voice recognition;[0047-0048]: facial recognition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner with facial recognition and voice recognition as taught by Zurek et al. in order to identify a particular individual and translate voice data into written data.
Claim 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) in view of Foster (US 2016/0379407 A1).
As to claim 34, Zagorsk teaches the method as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose wherein sensed data is from an optical imaging sensor worn on a wearable device.
However, Conner teaches wherein sensed data is from an optical imaging sensor worn on a wearable device ([0198]: wearable device comprise camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsek such that sensed data is from an optical imaging sensor worn on a wearable device as taught by Connor in order to measuring a person's consumption.
Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the method as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising providing sex stimulation based on sensing user condition with the wearable device and rendering reality views.
However, Foster teaches further comprising providing sex stimulation based on sensing user condition with the wearable device and rendering reality views ([0005]: display erotic images for virtual reality display; [0033];[0035]: motion sensor track head orientation and location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner by providing sex stimulation as taught by Foster in order to provide a virtual fantasy between sex partners.
Claim 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) in view of Malhotra et al. (US 2016/0349797 A1).
As to claim 35, Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose comprising a biometric sensor coupled to a wearable device.
However, Malhotra et al. teaches comprising a biometric sensor coupled to a wearable device ([0003]: wearable devices including biometric sensors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner with a biometric sensor coupled to a wearable device as taught by Malhotra et al. in order to verify the identity of the wearer of the wearable device.
Claim 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagorsek (US 2014/0320408 A1) in view of Connor (US 2014/0349256 A1) in view of Russell et al. (US 2002/0135581 A1).
As to claim 36, Zagorsk in view of Conner teaches the system of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose wherein a game provides a virtual world with an avatar for a user, wherein the avatar moves based on the user's head movement.
However, Russell et al. teaches whereina game provides a virtual world with an avatar for a user, wherein the avatar moves based on the user's head movement ([0017]; [0019]; [0024]; [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Zagorsk in view of Conner such that the game provides a virtual world with an avatar for a user, wherein the avatar moves based on the user’s head movement as taught by Russell et al. in order to control an avatar using computer vision.
Claims 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 10156721 B2) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (US 2017/0228104 A1).
As to claim 38, Scott et al. teaches a method to interact with a person (col. 2, lines 9-13: mixed
reality experience reacts to user movements), comprising:
detecting with a scanner having one or more infrared light emitting diodes (LEDs) and sensors to
detect one or more range or positional conditions of an object near a mobile device (col. 8, lines 10-20:
infrared LEDs; col. 10, lines 9-27: the IR light component may emit an infrared light onto the scene and
may then use sensors to detect the backscattered light from the surface of one or more objects in the
scene using, for example, the depth camera and/or the RGB camera. Pulsed infrared light may be used
such that the time between an outgoing light pulse and a corresponding incoming light pulse may be
measured and used to determine a physical distance from the room-facing camera to a particular location on the objects); and capturing images or a video using a camera on the mobile device (col. 5, lines 25-27: video camera);
capturing a plurality of images for generating a three-dimensional (3D) model of an environment
with the object based on outputs of one or more infrared light sensors (col. 10, lines 11-27: room-facing
camera 112 include IR light component that include sensors to detect light; col. 12, lines 22-57: image
sensed by room-facing cameras 112. Scene map generated may include x, y, z positions of objects within
the scene);
generating a 3D point cloud from the depth measurements and images obtained from different
viewpoints (col. 12, lines 58-67: The processing unit translates the image data points captured
by the sensors into an orthogonal 3-D scene map. This orthogonal 3-D scene map is a point cloud
map of all image data captured in an orthogonal x, y, z coordinate system); but does not explicitly
disclose determing a 3D volume of the object based on the 3D point cloud and a scale determined
from one or more of the projected laser beam by determining locations of points on the object's surface
in a plane or a slice using time-of- flight.
However, Ziraknejad et al. teaches determing a 3D volume of the object based on the 3D point
cloud and a scale determined from one or more of the projected laser beam by determining locations of
points on the object's surface in a plane or a slice using time-of- flight ([0035-0036]: time-of flight (TOF)
imaging system uses laser, and returns a 3D point cloud comprising 3D locations of points on the
surface of objects).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Scott et al.
by determing a 3D volume of the object based on the 3D point cloud and a scale determined from one
or more of the projected laser beam by determining locations of points on the object's surface in a plane
or a slice using time-of- flight as taught by Ziraknejad et al. in order to capture 3D image information,
since using time-of-flight is well-known in the art.
Claim 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 10156721 B2) in view of Ziraknejad et al. (US 2017/0288104 A1) and further in view of Tong et al. (US 2016/0328886 A1).
As to claim 19, Scott et al. in view of Ziraknejad et al. teaches the method as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose comprising displaying an avatar based on a 3D model of the object.
However, Tong et al. teaches displaying an avatar based on a 3D model of the object ([0012]:
avatar).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to modify the device of Scott et al. in view of Ziraknejad et al. by
displaying an avatar based on a 3D model of the object as taught by Tong et al. in order to allow
users to create custom avatars.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 STACY KHOO whose telephone number is (571)270-3698. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
/STACY KHOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights