CTNF 18/162,235 CTNF 96813 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 USC 102. Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 . Regarding claim 21, Mertz discloses a computer-implemented method comprising (pg. 29 Col. 2 ¶ 1 “The locations of the sensors and the computers are shown in Figure 12.”) : replicating a physical area in a Computer Aided Design (CAD) workspace (Fig. 23 The sensor data replicates the area in a CAD workspace.) , wherein a static object of the physical area is replicated in the CAD workspace with a single set of coordinates (Fig. 23 The curb is static and occupies one position within the scene.) , and wherein a dynamic object of the physical area is replicated in the CAD workspace with a range of coordinates that represents movement (Fig. 10 The dynamic pedestrian is tracked as they move through the scene. Each location is associated with a corresponding set of coordinates as in pg. 24 Col. 1 ¶ 2 “The origin of the coordinate system is the location of the new virtual laser scanner.”) ; and using the CAD workspace to enable relative sizing of a modeled object in the CAD workspace (Fig. 23-24 The size and position of the curb is displayed relative to the target vehicles.) , wherein the relative sizing is relative to the single set of coordinates associated with the static object and the range of coordinates associated with the dynamic object (pg. 24 Col. 1 ¶ 2, Fig. 23, Fig. 1. The objects are displayed based on their location and size in the physical scene, and the corresponding data points that represent the object in the CAD environment are positioned to display a size relative to their coordinates.) . Regarding claim 25, Mertz discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, and Mertz discloses further comprising: using the CAD workspace to enable relative positioning of the modeled object in the CAD workspace (Fig. 23-24 The size and position of the curb is displayed relative to the target vehicles.) , wherein the relative positioning is relative to the single set of coordinates associated with the static object and the range of coordinates associated with the dynamic object (pg. 24 Col. 1 ¶ 2, Fig. 23, Fig. 1. The objects are displayed based on their location and size in the physical scene, and the corresponding data points that represent the object in the CAD environment are positioned to display a size relative to their coordinates.) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 9, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Mertz discloses a computer-implemented method comprising: (pg. 29 Col. 2 ¶ 1 “The locations of the sensors and the computers are shown in Figure 12.”) extracting, by augmented reality mapping techniques, contextual information from at least one image of a physical area including a static object and a dynamic object (The sensors capture the environment including the curb and L-shaped vehicle targets as in Fig. 23-26. PNG media_image1.png 587 494 media_image1.png Greyscale ) ; replicating the physical area in a Computer Aided Design (CAD) workspace using the contextual information (Fig. 23 The sensor data replicates the area in a CAD workspace.) , wherein the static object is associated with a single set of coordinates (Fig. 23 The curb is static and occupies one position within the scene.) , and wherein the dynamic object is associate with a range of coordinates representing movement (Fig. 10 The dynamic pedestrian is tracked as they move through the scene. Each location is associated with a corresponding set of coordinates as in pg. 24 Col. 1 ¶ 2 “The origin of the coordinate system is the location of the new virtual laser scanner.”) ; Mertz does not disclose generating a print file for a modeled object created in the CAD workspace, wherein the print file includes computer-readable instructions for fabricating the modeled object by additive manufacturing. Curto discloses generating a print file for a modeled object created in the CAD workspace, wherein the print file includes computer-readable instructions for fabricating the modeled object by additive manufacturing ([0015] “the presentation system presents the 3D model in a variety of manners, including displaying, presenting, overlaying, and/or manufacturing (e.g., via additive printing).”) . Mertz and Curto are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz and Curto before him or her, to modify Mertz to include 3D printing as taught by Curto. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Curto [0026] “Additionally, the presentation system 106 may include an additive manufacturing system configured to manufacture a physical 3D model of the real-world object using the 3D model. The 3D model may be used in a variety of contexts, such as urban planning, natural disaster management, emergency response, personnel training, architectural design and visualization, anthropology, autonomous vehicle navigation, gaming, virtual reality, and more, providing a missing link between data acquisition and data presentation.” Regarding claim 2, Mertz in view of Curto teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, and Mertz discloses wherein the at least one image is derived from a Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) system (Fig. 23 description “the raw data from its forward-mounted LIDAR”) . Regarding claim 9, Mertz does not explicitly disclose a system comprising: one or more computer readable storage media storing program instructions; and one or more processors which, in response to executing the program instructions, are configured to perform a method comprising: Curto discloses a system comprising: one or more computer readable storage media storing program instructions; and one or more processors which, in response to executing the program instructions, are configured to perform a method comprising: ([0055] The computer system 900 may be a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer, such as one or more external computers made available via a cloud computing architecture. The presently described technology is optionally implemented in software stored on the data stored device(s) 904, stored on the memory device(s) 906, and/or communicated via one or more of the ports 908-910, thereby transforming the computer system 900 in FIG. 9 to a special purpose machine for implementing the operations described herein.). The remainder of the claim is rejected in the same way as claim 1. Claim 10 is rejected in the same way as claim 2. Regarding claim 13, Mertz does not explicitly disclose a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform a method. Curto discloses a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising instructions configured to cause one or more processors to perform a method. ([0055] The computer system 900 may be a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer, such as one or more external computers made available via a cloud computing architecture. The presently described technology is optionally implemented in software stored on the data stored device(s) 904, stored on the memory device(s) 906, and/or communicated via one or more of the ports 908-910, thereby transforming the computer system 900 in FIG. 9 to a special purpose machine for implementing the operations described herein.). The remainder of the claim is rejected in the same way as claim 1. Claim 14 is rejected in the same way as claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) in view of Fayad et al. “Tracking objects using a laser scanner in driving situation based on modeling target shape” 2007 . Regarding claim 3, Mertz in view of Curto teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but Mertz in view of Curto does not teach wherein the at least one image is derived from video data. Fayad teaches wherein the at least one image is derived from video data (pg. 48 Col. 1 ¶ 5 “In (Fig.5.), we can see four different situations: the laser scanner data and its interpretation by our algorithms in the left images, and the video images and the projection of the interpretations in 3D representation in the right images.”) . Mertz, Curto, and Fayad are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, and Fayad before him or her, to modify Mertz and Curto to include video data as taught by Fayad. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Fayad pg. 44 Col. 2 ¶ 4 “The next sections describe one of our approaches to obtain data about context driving situation. Such as in [10] [12], we take into account the shape of the detected object to have better precision in clustering and estimating. We propose to adapt the detection according to the predicted pose and occlusions. The dimensions of the object are filtered in order to tackle the scan effects. The track and the dynamic estimation are achieved with a classical Kalman filter and data association is applied on segmented data. The results are bounded boxes which can be used by the image processor to classify the objects. This method is experimented using a single layer laser scanner of type SICK mounted on a vehicle and validated by the means of video data.” Regarding claim 4, Mertz in view of Curto teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but Mertz in view of Curto does not teach wherein the at least one image is derived from photographic data. Fayad teaches wherein the at least one image is derived from photographic data. (pg. 48 Col. 1 ¶ 5 “In (Fig.5.), we can see four different situations: the laser scanner data and its interpretation by our algorithms in the left images, and the video images and the projection of the interpretations in 3D representation in the right images.” Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, video images are photographic data.) . Mertz, Curto, and Fayad are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, and Fayad before him or her, to modify Mertz and Curto to include video data as taught by Fayad. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Fayad pg. 44 Col. 2 ¶ 4 “The next sections describe one of our approaches to obtain data about context driving situation. Such as in [10] [12], we take into account the shape of the detected object to have better precision in clustering and estimating. We propose to adapt the detection according to the predicted pose and occlusions. The dimensions of the object are filtered in order to tackle the scan effects. The track and the dynamic estimation are achieved with a classical Kalman filter and data association is applied on segmented data. The results are bounded boxes which can be used by the image processor to classify the objects. This method is experimented using a single layer laser scanner of type SICK mounted on a vehicle and validated by the means of video data.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) in view of Menon et al. (US 2021/0236251 A1) . Regarding claim 5, Mertz in view of Curto teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but Mertz in view of Curto does not teach further comprising: transmitting the print file to an additive manufacturing system; and fabricating a printed object corresponding to the modeled object using the additive manufacturing system and the print file. Menon teaches further comprising: transmitting the print file to an additive manufacturing system ([0199] “Advantageously, when a doctor clicks print on his or her computer (send to printer) the back end is seamlessly controlled by the patient transaction engine and the patient compliance engine is handled for the doctor without input or assistance from the doctor.”) ; and fabricating a printed object corresponding to the modeled object using the additive manufacturing system and the print file (Fig. 16, [0197] “The starter device 3D printing engine 1620 is intended to represent hardware that receives communications from treatment planning engine, scanners, and the 3D printer 1622.”) . Mertz, Curto, and Menon are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, and Menon before him or her, to modify Mertz and Curto to include transmitting data and printing based on the data as taught by Menon. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Menon [0196] “The patient transaction engine 1612 acts as a treatment planning "hub" in communication with the patient compliance engine 1606, the image sensor 1615, and the 3D printer 1622. Advantageously, this enables communication between customers (patients) and a printon- demand in the medical and beauty fields, such as dental and orthodontics. In a specific implementation, the initial and final position datastore 1618 corresponds to the final position datastore 310 and/or the original and final position datastore 1510 of FIGS. 3 and 15, respectively.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) in view of Menon et al. (US 2021/0236251 A1) in view of Roh et al. (US 20240065762 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Mertz in view of Curto and Menon teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 5, but Mertz, Curto, and Menon do not explicitly disclose further comprising: generating orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area; and transmitting the orientation instructions to a user device. Roh teaches further comprising: generating orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area ([0011] “the extruder being set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.”) ; and transmitting the orientation instructions to a user device (Abstract “The disclosed technology can include generating instructions for a 3D printer of a surgical robot to print a structure within the patient's body, simulating and verifying the instructions, and autonomously or semi-autonomously executing the instructions, once verified, during a surgical procedure.”) . Mertz, Curto, Menon, and Roh are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, Menon, and Roh before him or her, to modify Mertz, Curto, and Menon to include transmitting data and printing based on the data as taught by Roh. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Roh [0109] “The location and orientation information can be specific to the type of procedure, characteristics about the patient's body and health, characteristics about the print surface, and/or characteristics about the designed structure to be printed inside, adjacent, affixed to, or otherwise around anatomical structures of the patient's body.” Claim 11 is rejected in the same way as claims 5 and 6. Claim 15 is rejected in the same way as claims 5 and 6 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 7, 12, and 16 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M ertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) in view of Wan et al. (US 2024/0029352 A1). R egarding claim 7, Mertz in view of Curto teach the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but Mertz in view of Curto does not teach wherein extracting the contextual information further comprises: determining that the at least one image contains insufficient data to replicate the physical area in the CAD workspace; transmitting imaging instructions to a user device for obtaining additional images; and receiving the additional images. Wan teaches wherein extracting the contextual information further comprises: determining that the at least one image contains insufficient data to replicate the physical area in the CAD workspace ([0046] “In this example, the updated GUI includes updated room shape information that includes the initial room shape 239a of FIG. 2F for the first room and an initial estimated room shape 238a for the hallway—it will be appreciated that the right (or east) end of the room shape for the hallway is not initially represented, such as due to having insufficient visual data from acquisition location 210C at the west end of the hallway.”) ; transmitting imaging instructions to a user device for obtaining additional images; and receiving the additional images (Fig. 2H, Abstract “The automated analysis and assessment of the building images may, for example, include incrementally generating partial versions of the mapping information, determining acquisition instructions related to further acquisition of additional images and/or other types of data (e.g., to reduce uncertainty associated with portions of the partial mapping information or otherwise obtain missing data), and providing corresponding guidance in or more manners.” The system provides imaging instructions for the user who gathers additional images for the model.) . Mertz, Curto, and Wan are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, and Wan before him or her, to modify Mertz and Curto to include gathering image data as taught by Wan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Wan [0002] “However, it can be difficult to effectively capture, represent and use such building interior information, including to display visual information captured within building interiors to users at remote locations (e.g., to enable a user to fully understand the layout and other details of the interior, including to control the display in a user-selected manner). In addition, while a floor plan of a building may provide some information about layout and other details of a building interior, such use of floor plans has some drawbacks in certain situations, including that floor plans can be difficult to construct and maintain, to accurately scale and populate with information about room interiors, to visualize and otherwise use, etc.” The instructions for additional images avoids the issues described in the invention background. Claim 12 is rejected in the same way as claim 7. Claim 16 is rejected in the same way as claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Curto et al. (US 2023/0100300 A1) in view of Rakshit (US 20210107230 A1). The Rakshit reference is not subject to the exceptions under 35 USC 102(b)(1)(A) or 102(b)(1)(B) as the reference was published more than 1 year before the effective filing date of the instant application . Regarding claim 8, Mertz in view of Curto teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but Mertz does not disclose wherein the method is performed by a computer implementing CAD environmental modeling code, and wherein the method further comprises: metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code; and generating an invoice based on metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code. Curto teaches wherein the method is performed by a computer implementing CAD environmental modeling code ([0055] “The presently described technology is optionally implemented in software stored on the data stored device(s) 904”, Fig. 8 Object Modeling System) . Mertz and Curto are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz and Curto before him or her, to modify Mertz to include 3D printing CAD software as taught by Curto. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Curto [0026] “The 3D model may be used in a variety of contexts, such as urban planning, natural disaster management, emergency response, personnel training, architectural design and visualization, anthropology, autonomous vehicle navigation, gaming, virtual reality, and more, providing a missing link between data acquisition and data presentation.” Mertz and Curto do not disclose wherein the method further comprises: metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code; and generating an invoice based on metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code. Rakshit teaches wherein the method further comprises: metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code ([0076] “, metering use of the systems” [0014] Additive manufacturing (also referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing) involves receiving a computer-aided design (CAD) model, parsing the CAD model into numerous layers, and then printing each layer sequentially to physically manufacture a component based on the CAD model.) ; and generating an invoice based on metering usage of the CAD environmental modeling code ([0076] “invoicing (e.g., generating an invoice), or otherwise receiving payment for use of the systems.” [0014] Additive manufacturing (also referred to as three-dimensional (3D) printing) involves receiving a computer-aided design (CAD) model, parsing the CAD model into numerous layers, and then printing each layer sequentially to physically manufacture a component based on the CAD model.) . Mertz, Curto, and Rakshit are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Curto, and Rakshit before him or her, to modify Mertz and Curto to include metering as taught by Rakshit. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Rakshit [0076] “Embodiments of the present invention can also be delivered as part of a service engagement with a client corporation, nonprofit organization, government entity, internal organizational structure, or the like. These embodiments can include configuring a computer system to perform, and deploying software, hardware, and web services that implement, some or all of the methods described herein.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 17, 19, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Menon et al. (US 2021/0236251 A1) in view of Roh et al. (US 20240065762 A1) . Regarding claim 17, Mertz discloses a system comprising: a Light Ranging And Detection (LIDAR) system configured to generate spatial data for a physical area (Fig. 23 “forward-mounted LIDAR” and the corresponding image of a physical area spatial data) ; a computer implementing Computer Aided Design (CAD) environmental modeling code configured to replicate the physical area in a CAD workspace using the spatial data (Fig. 23 The sensor data replicates the area in a CAD workspace.) , Mertz does not disclose [code configured to] generate a print file corresponding to a modeled object created in the CAD workspace; an additive manufacturing system configured to fabricate a printed object corresponding to the modeled object and based on the print file; and a user device configured to receive orientation instructions for placing the printed object in the physical area. Menon teaches [code configured to] generate a print file corresponding to a modeled object created in the CAD workspace ([0015] “the presentation system presents the 3D model in a variety of manners, including displaying, presenting, overlaying, and/or manufacturing (e.g., via additive printing).”) ; an additive manufacturing system configured to fabricate a printed object corresponding to the modeled object and based on the print file ([0198] “ Once scanned, an stl file is created and sent to a treatment planning engine, a treatment plan is created, and the treatment plan is sent to doctor manufacturer who approves the treatment plan. The stl file is sent to a 3D printer, molds are printed, and devices, such as aligners, thermoformed. In the alternative, the stl file is sent to a 3D printer to print devices, such as aligners.”) ; and Mertz and Menon are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz and Menon before him or her, to modify Mertz to include transmitting data and printing based on the data as taught by Menon. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Menon [0196] “The patient transaction engine 1612 acts as a treatment planning "hub" in communication with the patient compliance engine 1606, the image sensor 1615, and the 3D printer 1622. Advantageously, this enables communication between customers (patients) and a printon- demand in the medical and beauty fields, such as dental and orthodontics. In a specific implementation, the initial and final position datastore 1618 corresponds to the final position datastore 310 and/or the original and final position datastore 1510 of FIGS. 3 and 15, respectively.” Mertz and Menon do not disclose a user device configured to receive orientation instructions for placing the printed object in the physical area. Roh teaches a user device configured to receive orientation instructions for placing the printed object in the physical area ([0011] “the extruder being set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.”) . Mertz, Menon, and Roh are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Menon, and Roh before him or her, to modify Mertz and Menon to include transmitting data as taught by Roh. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Roh [0109] “The location and orientation information can be specific to the type of procedure, characteristics about the patient's body and health, characteristics about the print surface, and/or characteristics about the designed structure to be printed inside, adjacent, affixed to, or otherwise around anatomical structures of the patient's body.” Regarding claim 19, Mertz in view of Menon and Roh teaches the system of claim 17, but Mertz and Menon do not disclose wherein the user device is further configured to receive orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area. Roh teaches wherein the user device is further configured to receive orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area ([0011] “the extruder being set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.” Abstract “The disclosed technology can include generating instructions for a 3D printer of a surgical robot to print a structure within the patient's body, simulating and verifying the instructions, and autonomously or semi-autonomously executing the instructions, once verified, during a surgical procedure.”) . Mertz, Menon, and Roh are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Menon, and Roh before him or her, to modify Mertz and Menon to include transmitting data as taught by Roh. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Roh [0109] “The location and orientation information can be specific to the type of procedure, characteristics about the patient's body and health, characteristics about the print surface, and/or characteristics about the designed structure to be printed inside, adjacent, affixed to, or otherwise around anatomical structures of the patient's body.” Regarding claim 20, Mertz in view of Menon and Roh teaches the system of claim 17, and Mertz discloses wherein the modeled object has dimensions based on relative sizing or relative positioning to replicated physical area objects in the CAD workspace (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, only one of the listed alternatives must be taught. More than one may be mapped for the sake of compact prosecution. Fig. 23-24 The size and position of the curb is displayed relative to the target vehicles.) . Regarding claim 24, Mertz in view of Menon teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 23, but do not teach further comprising: transmitting, to a user device, orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area. Roh teaches further comprising: transmitting, to a user device, orientation instructions for orienting the printed object in the physical area ([0011] “the extruder being set to a predetermined position and a predetermined orientation defined by the printing instructions.” Abstract “The disclosed technology can include generating instructions for a 3D printer of a surgical robot to print a structure within the patient's body, simulating and verifying the instructions, and autonomously or semi-autonomously executing the instructions, once verified, during a surgical procedure.”) . Mertz, Menon, and Roh are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Menon, and Roh before him or her, to modify Mertz and Menon to include transmitting data as taught by Roh. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Roh [0109] “The location and orientation information can be specific to the type of procedure, characteristics about the patient's body and health, characteristics about the print surface, and/or characteristics about the designed structure to be printed inside, adjacent, affixed to, or otherwise around anatomical structures of the patient's body.” 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 8 is r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over M ertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Menon et al. (US 2021/0236251 A1) in view of Roh et al. (US 20240065762 A1) in view of Wan et al. (US 2024/0029352 A1). R egarding claim 18, Mertz in view of Menon and Roh teaches the system of claim 17, and Mertz discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 23 “LIDAR”). Mertz in view of Menon and Roh does not disclose wherein the user device is further configured to receive imaging instructions for adjusting the […] system to generate additional spatial data for the physical area, and wherein replicating the physical area in the CAD workspace is further based on the additional spatial data. Wan teaches wherein the user device is further configured to receive imaging instructions for adjusting the […] system to generate additional spatial data for the physical area ([0046] “In this example, the updated GUI includes updated room shape information that includes the initial room shape 239a of FIG. 2F for the first room and an initial estimated room shape 238a for the hallway—it will be appreciated that the right (or east) end of the room shape for the hallway is not initially represented, such as due to having insufficient visual data from acquisition location 210C at the west end of the hallway.”), and wherein replicating the physical area in the CAD workspace is further based on the additional spatial data. (Fig. 2H, Abstract “The automated analysis and assessment of the building images may, for example, include incrementally generating partial versions of the mapping information, determining acquisition instructions related to further acquisition of additional images and/or other types of data (e.g., to reduce uncertainty associated with portions of the partial mapping information or otherwise obtain missing data), and providing corresponding guidance in or more manners.” The system provides imaging instructions for the user who gathers additional images for the model.) . Mertz, Menon, Roh, and Wan are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz, Menon, Roh, and Wan before him or her, to modify Mertz, Menon, and Roh to include gathering image data as taught by Wan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Wan [0002] “However, it can be difficult to effectively capture, represent and use such building interior information, including to display visual information captured within building interiors to users at remote locations (e.g., to enable a user to fully understand the layout and other details of the interior, including to control the display in a user-selected manner). In addition, while a floor plan of a building may provide some information about layout and other details of a building interior, such use of floor plans has some drawbacks in certain situations, including that floor plans can be difficult to construct and maintain, to accurately scale and populate with information about room interiors, to visualize and otherwise use, etc.” The instructions for additional images avoids the issues described in the invention background . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertz et al. “Moving Object Detection with Laser Scanners” 2012 in view of Menon et al. (US 2021/0236251 A1) . Regarding claim 22, Mertz discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, but Mertz does not disclose further comprising: generating a print file for the modeled object, wherein the print file is configured to enable an additive manufacturing system to fabricate a printed object corresponding to the modeled object. Menon teaches further comprising: generating a print file for the modeled object, ([0015] “the presentation system presents the 3D model in a variety of manners, including displaying, presenting, overlaying, and/or manufacturing (e.g., via additive printing).”) wherein the print file is configured to enable an additive manufacturing system to fabricate a printed object corresponding to the modeled object. ([0198] “ Once scanned, an stl file is created and sent to a treatment planning engine, a treatment plan is created, and the treatment plan is sent to doctor manufacturer who approves the treatment plan. The stl file is sent to a 3D printer, molds are printed, and devices, such as aligners, thermoformed. In the alternative, the stl file is sent to a 3D printer to print devices, such as aligners.”) . Mertz and Menon are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz and Menon before him or her, to modify Mertz to include transmitting data and printing based on the data as taught by Menon. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Menon [0196] “The patient transaction engine 1612 acts as a treatment planning "hub" in communication with the patient compliance engine 1606, the image sensor 1615, and the 3D printer 1622. Advantageously, this enables communication between customers (patients) and a printon- demand in the medical and beauty fields, such as dental and orthodontics. In a specific implementation, the initial and final position datastore 1618 corresponds to the final position datastore 310 and/or the original and final position datastore 1510 of FIGS. 3 and 15, respectively.” Regarding claim 23, Mertz in view of Menon teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 22, but Mertz does not disclose further comprising: fabricating the printed object using the additive manufacturing system. Menon teaches further comprising: fabricating the printed object using the additive manufacturing system ([0198] “ Once scanned, an stl file is created and sent to a treatment planning engine, a treatment plan is created, and the treatment plan is sent to doctor manufacturer who approves the treatment plan. The stl file is sent to a 3D printer, molds are printed, and devices, such as aligners, thermoformed. In the alternative, the stl file is sent to a 3D printer to print devices, such as aligners.”) . Mertz and Menon are analogous because they are from the “same field of endeavor” 3D modeling. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Mertz and Menon before him or her, to modify Mertz to include transmitting data and printing based on the data as taught by Menon. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been Menon [0196] “The patient transaction engine 1612 acts as a treatment planning "hub" in communication with the patient compliance engine 1606, the image sensor 1615, and the 3D printer 1622. Advantageously, this enables communication between customers (patients) and a printon- demand in the medical and beauty fields, such as dental and orthodontics. In a specific implementation, the initial and final position datastore 1618 corresponds to the final position datastore 310 and/or the original and final position datastore 1510 of FIGS. 3 and 15, respectively.” Conclusion The examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support is shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. Indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). When responding to this Office Action, the applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TROY A MAUST whose telephone number is (571)272-1931. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8AM to 4PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rehana Perveen, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3676. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /T.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2189 /REHANA PERVEEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 2 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 3 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 4 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 5 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 6 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 7 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 8 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 9 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 10 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 11 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 12 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 13 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 14 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 15 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 16 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 17 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 18 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 19 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 20 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 21 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 22 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 23 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 24 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 25 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 26 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 27 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 28 Art Unit: 2189 Application/Control Number: 18/162,235 Page 29 Art Unit: 2189
Prosecution Insights