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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 were pending. Claims 1, 3, 12, 21 have been amended. No new claimed have been added and no claims have been canceled. Thus, claims 1-21 are currently pending including independent claims 1 and 12.
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 21 is removed in light of the remarks and amendments filed 03/12/2026.
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 14-15 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 14 recites the limitation “the at least one of the one or more normal vectors and the one or more spatial features” in lines 3-4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 14 similarly to the current amendment to claim 3 to address this issue.
Claims 15-16 are dependent on claim 14 and are thus similarly rejected.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is removed in light of the remarks and amendments filed 03/12/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are removed in light of the remarks and amendments filed 03/12/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20160203387 A1) in view of Ghazvinian (US 20230186476 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a method for performing point cloud segmentation ([0003]: 3D point cloud data to be segmented), the method comprising:
receiving, by an electronic device, a point cloud comprising at least one of colorless data and featureless data ([0016]-[0017], [0020]: a system including a camera and a computer receives a grayscale point cloud);
determining, by the electronic device, one or more normal vectors and one or more spatial features for one or more vertices in the point cloud (Fig. 3, [0025]-[0026]: determining normal vector and identifying neighborhood points (i.e. spatial feature) for each point in the 3D point cloud).
Lee fails to disclose segmenting, by the electronic device, the point cloud by inputting a concatenation of the one or more normal vectors and the one or more spatial features as an input into a neural network.
Ghazvinian , in a related system from the same field of endeavor of segmentation of 3D point clouds based on geometric information (Abstract), discloses segmenting, by the electronic device, the point cloud by inputting a concatenation of the one or more normal vectors and the one or more spatial features as an input into a neural network (Fig. 3, [0067] the input data may include coordinates defining points of the point cloud and may also include normal vectors of surfaces defined by a number of points, a mesh may define a graph including a number of vertices at locations defined by the points. More generated input data may include 3D position of a point and one or more further attributes (i.e. the input data comprises a concatenation of normal vectors and spatial features); [0068] the feature extractor (i.e. which receives the input data) is a deep neural network; Fig. 3, [0065], [0084] the point cloud is segmented).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ghazvinian with Lee and segment the point cloud by inputting a concatenation of the one or more normal vectors and the one or more spatial features as an input into a neural network, as disclosed by Ghazvinian, as part of a method for performing point cloud segmentation, as disclosed by Lee, for the purpose of accurate and efficient segmentation of 3D point clouds and detection of objects within the point cloud (See Ghazvinian [0008], [0018]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method as claimed in claim 1. Lee further discloses wherein the receiving the point cloud comprising the at least one of the colorless data and the featureless data comprises: capturing a plurality of image frames of a real-world environment using at least one sensor of the electronic device ([0017], [0021]: a camera (i.e. sensor) captures a plurality of images of an environment ); and determining the point cloud of the real-world environment from the plurality of image frames using at least one image processing mechanism ([0020]-[0021] The camera 10 includes an image acquisition sensor that signally connects to the camera controller 20, which executes digital signal processing (DSP) on the bitmap image file 15 to generate the 3D point cloud 25.).
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses everything claimed as applied above (See rejection of claim 1). Lee further discloses an electronic device comprising a memory; a segmentation controller, coupled to the memory ([0022] controller and associated memory).
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the electronic device as claimed in claim 12 as applied above. Lee discloses wherein the electronic device further comprises: at least one sensor; wherein the segmentation controller further configured to: capture a plurality of image frames of a real-world environment using the at least one sensor ([0017], [0021]: a camera (i.e. sensor) captures a plurality of images of an environment); and determine the point cloud of the real-world environment from the plurality of image frames using at least one image processing mechanism ([0020]-[0021] The camera 10 includes an image acquisition sensor that signally connects to the camera controller 20, which executes digital signal processing (DSP) on the bitmap image file 15 to generate the 3D point cloud 25.).
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. Lee further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer program stored thereon that performs the method when executed by a processor ([0022]: storage containing program that is executed by central processing unit(s)).
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20160203387 A1) in view of Ghazvinian (US 20230186476 A1) in further view of Gadermayr (WO 2023174555 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. Lee fails to disclose detecting, by the electronic device, at least one input from a user of the electronic device to place at least one object in a virtual environment; determining, by the electronic device, an optimal empty location to place the at least one object in the virtual environment based on the segmented point cloud; and displaying, by the electronic device, the virtual environment comprising the at least one object placed in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment.
Gadermayr, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of point cloud processing including segmentation for analyzing and/or interacting with a virtual environment (Abstract, Fig. 7C), discloses detecting, by the electronic device, at least one input from a user of the electronic device to place at least one object in a virtual environment; determining, by the electronic device, an optimal empty location to place the at least one object in the virtual environment based on the segmented point cloud; and displaying, by the electronic device, the virtual environment comprising the at least one object placed in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment (Pg. 44 L. 21 - Pg. 45 L. 15: user-definable criteria are used to identify available/free space (i.e. empty location) in the environment in which a modified object can be displayed).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gadermayr with Lee in view of Ghazvinian and detect user input to identify empty space to insert an object into the virtual environment, as disclosed by Gadermayr, as part of a method for performing point cloud segmentation, as disclosed by Lee in view of Ghazvinian, for the purpose of improving the efficiency and accuracy of processing of the virtual environment of the user (See Gadermayr, pg. 3 Lines 13-19; pg. 21 Lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the electronic device according to claim 12 as applied above. Lee fails to disclose detect at least one input from a user of the electronic device to place at least one object in a virtual environment; determine an optimal empty location to place the at least one object in the virtual environment based on the segmented point cloud; and display the virtual environment comprising the at least one object placed in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment.
Gadermayr, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of point cloud processing including segmentation for analyzing and/or interacting with a virtual environment (Abstract, Fig. 7C), discloses to detect at least one input from a user of the electronic device to place at least one object in a virtual environment; determine an optimal empty location to place the at least one object in the virtual environment based on the segmented point cloud; and display the virtual environment comprising the at least one object placed in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment (Pg. 44 L. 21 - Pg. 45 L. 15: user-definable criteria are used to identify available/free space (i.e. empty location) in the environment in which a modified object can be displayed).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gadermayr with Lee in view of Ghazvinian and detect user input to identify empty space to insert an object into the virtual environment, as disclosed by Gadermayr, as part of a device for performing point cloud segmentation, as disclosed by Lee in view of Ghazvinian, for the purpose of improving the efficiency and accuracy of processing of the virtual environment of the user (See Gadermayr, pg. 3 Lines 13-19; pg. 21 Lines 1-6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-11, 17, 19, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses determining a similarity score for the one or more vertices in the point cloud based on the one or more normal vectors and the one or more spatial features; determining an attention score based on the at least one of the one or more normal vectors, the one or more spatial features, and the similarity score; determining a global feature vector of the point cloud based on the at least one of the one or more normal vectors, the one or more spatial features, the similarity score, and the attention score; and segmenting the point cloud based on at least one of the similarity score, the attention score, and the global feature vector.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14 which discloses similar subject matter to claim 3.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 4-5, 10, and 15-16 (which depend on either claim 3 or 14).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Ghazvinian in further view of Gadermayr discloses the method according to claim 2 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the displaying the virtual environment comprising the at least one object placed in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment comprises: determining a scale and an orientation of the at least one object in the optimal empty location; determining a Model View and Projection Matrix (MVP) based on the determined scale and the determined orientation of the at least one object; and determining a shade of the at least one object based on a real-world illustration and an occlusion of at least one real-world object based on the segmented point cloud.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 17 which discloses similar subject matter to claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses filtering at least one of a noise and an outlier from the point cloud by applying at least one of an adaptive filter and a selective filter; determining a plane tangent to a surface around each of the one or more vertices in the point cloud; and determining the one or more normal vectors based on the determined plane tangent.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 19 which discloses similar subject matter to claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses filtering at least one of a noise and an outlier from the point cloud by applying at least one of an adaptive filter and a selective filter; determining a region of a first radius around each vertex in the point cloud and at least one principal component for a subset of three dimensional (3D) points in the region; determining at least one principle Eigen vector from the at least one determined principle component; and determining a mean depth of the subset of 3D points in the region around each of the one or more vertices.
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses detecting, by the electronic device, a viewing direction of a user using the electronic device to see at least one object in a virtual environment based on the segmented point cloud; determining, by the electronic device, an optimal empty location associated with the viewing direction based on the segmented point cloud, wherein the optimal empty location comprises at least one plane associated with the viewing direction in the segmented point cloud and depth information of the at least one plane; and displaying, by the electronic device , the virtual environment with the at least one object in the optimal empty location of the virtual environment.
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Ghazvinian discloses the method as claimed in claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Lee nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the one or more spatial features comprises at one of mean depth information and Eigenvector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 have been fully considered and they are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Lee and Ghazvinian.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675