DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 June 2026, at page 8 with respect to the objection to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 June 2026, at pages 8-9 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are moot because the amendment to claims 1, 9 and 10 necessitated further consideration with respect to eligibility and the amended claims are not interpreted as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Specifically, the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong One of the subject matter eligibility analysis. When viewing each claim element individually and as an ordered combination, the claims do not set forth or recite a judicial exception. Rather, when read in context, it is no longer reasonable to interpret the claims as being directed to a mental process that could practically be performed in the human mind but for the mere recitation of generic computer components. Instead, the claims are directed to a logical computer-based process tied to the specific technical problem of scan model alignment (e.g., point clouds) by incorporating a logical condition by which an initial (rough) alignment is performed or not performed depending upon whether a ratio of a distances between scan models that are less than or equal to a first threshold is greater than or equal to a reference value or whether a statistical property of a distribution of the distances is less than or equal to a second threshold. Accordingly, the claims are directed to eligible subject matter and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 2 June 2026, at pages 10-12 with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because the amendment necessitated further consideration of the applied grounds of rejection, which now no longer teach every element of the claims. Accordingly, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: the excessive spacing between “the initial alignment comprises” and “determining whether:” should be reduced to a single space for clarity.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the line that begins with “without performing the initial alignment” on page 7 should not be indented and should instead be in line with “... the second scan model” to be consistent with claims 1 and 10; and the excessive spacing between “alignment by” and “determining whether:” should be reduced to a single space for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
According to the Federal Circuit’s decision in SuperGuide v. DirecTV, claim language of the type “at least one of … and …” may create a presumption that Applicant intended the plain and ordinary meaning of the claim language to be a conjunctive list unless the Specification supports an interpretation of the claim language that rebuts the presumption.1 In other words, if the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) encompasses disjunctive and continuative interpretations, then the broadest reasonable interpretation, which is the disjunctive interpretation, will be assumed if it supported by the Specification, otherwise the conjunctive interpretation is assumed, per SuperGuide. The phrase “at least one of” in this context is considered equivalent to “one or more of”.
Claim 4 recites limitations that raise the presumption of a conjunctive list per SuperGuide:
[Claim 4] … the statistical property value comprises one or more of a minimum, a maximum, a median, an average, an absolute average, a mode, a range, and a variance. (emphasis added).
The Specification at page 17 provides, “In an embodiment, the alignment method selection portion 211 may obtain statistical properties of the distance distribution by using the distances between the pluralities of points. The statistical properties of the distance distribution may include at least one of a minimum, a maximum, a median, an average, an absolute average, a mode, a range, and a variance of the distances between the first scan model and the second scan model. The alignment method selection portion 211 may determine whether a statistical property value of the distance distribution is less than or equal to a first threshold value, and when the statistical property value of the distance distribution is less than or equal to the first threshold value, determine that the relationship between the first scan model and the second scan model satisfies the first alignment criterion.” (emphasis added). This embodiment provides a list of multiple statistical properties and refers to just one of the properties as being compared to a threshold.
Also, from a practical perspective, a single statistical property of the distribution of distances being a minimum, a maximum, a median, an average, an absolute average, a mode, a range, and a variance would be confusing as to what it would represent and how a formula including all such properties would be constructed.
Based on the Specification and reasoning provided above, it is assumed that Applicant intended claim 4 to describe a disjunctive list, meaning a minimum of one of the listed elements is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “performing a precise alignment between the first scan model and the second scan model without performing the initial alignment, thereby improving accuracy of the precise alignment” (emphasis added). Claims 9 and 10 recite substantially similar limitations. The phrase “thereby improving accuracy of the precise alignment” creates ambiguity because it is unclear what it further adds to the claim beyond the preceding limitation(s). How has accuracy been improved? The phrase also amounts to an intended use of performing the precise alignment and is not a concrete, identifiable concept. Accordingly, claims 1, 9 and 10 are indefinite because their scope cannot be readily ascertained. For purposes of applying prior art, the phrase “thereby improving accuracy of the precise alignment” is interpreted to refer to the three-dimensional transformation that maximizes overlapping portions between pieces of three-dimensional data through local search as disclosed on page 18 of the instant specification and featured in the granted claims of the corresponding Korean application (Korean pat. no. 102651515). Dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 9 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 See Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Prosecution Insights