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 Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filing of terminal disclaimer on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered. The double patenting of 10/20/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments, see P. 1 - P. 5, filed 12/12/2025, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not found convincing. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of 10/20/2025 has NOT been withdrawn.
Applicant’s addition of claims 33, 35, and 37 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view Foote et al. (US 7,253,766 B2).
Applicant’s addition of claim 34 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of FARAHBAKHSHIAN et al. (US 2019/0175069 A1). And Moore et al. (US 2017/0251143 A1).
Applicant’s addition of claims 36 and 45 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1).
Applicant’s addition of claims 38-40 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view Peruch et al. (US 2017/0251143 A1).
Applicant’s addition of claims 41 and 46-47 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view Vassigh et al. (US 2011/0193939 A1).
Applicant’s addition of claims 42 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view MILLER (US 2010/0295854 A1).
Applicant’s addition of claims 43-44 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view FARAHBAKHSHIAN et al. (US 2019/0175069 A1).
Regarding claim 1, examiner respectfully disagree with the argument of Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) does not generate or capture depth images and the four main points of the argument:
(1) that Demers teaches sensors are equivalent to "range cameras" as claimed; and
(2) that in Demers "the body remains in the same pose" as claimed for capturing different depth images;
(3) that Demers captures “at least a first depth image of a surface of a body from at least a first point of view”; and
(4) that Demers captures “at least a second depth image of the surface of the body from at least a second point of view”.
Regarding (1), since it hinges on the remaining limitations and (2), (3), and (4), as long as (2), (3), and (4) is resolved, (1) is also resolved.
Regarding (2), it can be seen in Fig. 1, 6, and 7 that the human figure remained in the same pose. In addition, Fig. 7 is essentially stitching the six human data cloud of Fig. 6 into a single model. As, such, it is reasonable to believe that the six images are taken under the circumstances that the person being photographed remained in the same pose, otherwise the stitching will not be possible.
Regarding (3) and (4), examiner believes that the six data cloud of Fig. 6 are depth images. The six point of view of data cloud of a human model are six different depth images of the same person and each of these images are captured using the CCD camera, which is also a camera suggested within the specification (Para [0167] and Para [0179]). The capture of depth images requires the measurement of depth, the use of a projector to project grid on to a human body and measuring the depth based on the contour of the grid is a well-known and standard technique to generate depth images. Calculation of depth can be seen in Col. 6-Col. 7 of Demers. Since the section regarding the calculation of depth is within the same embodiment of the cited sections, examiner believes that the calculation section also needs to be considered when applying Demers as a prior art to the application.
Fog the above reason, examiner believes that Chang in view of Demers teaches everything within independent claims 1 and the argument within the remark regarding claim 1 is not convincing. The 103 rejection will NOT be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 36 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang) and Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers).
Regarding claim 1, Chang discloses
A system for scanning and measuring a surface of a body of a person, comprising:
a processor (Col. 8 Lns. 32-33: “Depending on the scanner 302, various levels of additional data processing by a processor 308 may be required”);
a second set of computer instructions executable on the processor capable of reconstructing the surface of the body by transforming the first and second set of three dimensional points into a final combined set of three dimensional points representing the surface of the body in a commonly shared coordinate system (Fig. 7, Col. 9 Lns. 25-36: “As is shown in FIG. 7, after the procedures depicted in FIG. 1 are completed and the 3D polygonal mesh 318 has been imported into the 3D CAD design system 320, the initially performed task 200 involves defining and marking the body surface with measuring guidelines, landmarks, 3D planes, and 3D shape definition points. The next step 202 comprises capturing and recording 3D measuring data. In the final step 204, the 3D measurement data is exploited to allow, for example, the configuration of virtual mannequins, the automatic generation of garment patterns, or in a data base for the accurate prediction of sizes and the virtual trying on of garments”, Col. 12 Lns. 33-47: “Under this arrangement, a library of intelligent 3D pattern parts can first be input into the system or created within the system under step 228. The library, of course, could include any possible 3D pattern part including, by way of example only, different styles of collars, sleeves, pockets, bodices and any one of the many other 3D pattern parts that would readily occur to one skilled in the art. With such a library provided, 3D parts can be selected and combined under step 230 to create different combinations and new designs on, for example, a standard sized virtual mannequin. Under step 232, the system can automatically adjust the shape and size of the selected and combined 3D parts to accommodate the shape and size of the virtual mannequin and one another and to ensure that they fit together properly”);
a third set of computer instructions executable on the processor capable of identifying points of measure from the final combined set of three dimensional points (Fig. 3a-3d, Fig. 7-8, Col. 9 Lns. 25-36: “As is shown in FIG. 7, after the procedures depicted in FIG. 1 are completed and the 3D polygonal mesh 318 has been imported into the 3D CAD design system 320, the initially performed task 200 involves defining and marking the body surface with measuring guidelines, landmarks, 3D planes, and 3D shape definition points. The next step 202 comprises capturing and recording 3D measuring data. In the final step 204, the 3D measurement data is exploited to allow, for example, the configuration of virtual mannequins, the automatic generation of garment patterns, or in a data base for the accurate prediction of sizes and the virtual trying on of garments”, Col. 10 Lns. 36-43: “The next step, labeled as step 214 in FIG. 8, comprises identifying and defining measurement guidelines and land marks by adding 3D shape definition points to certain measurements. The results of step 214 are depicted in FIGS. 3a-3d. There, one sees that the 3D shape definition points can be added to girth measurements, arc measurements, vertical measurements (typically taken with shoes on), and width and length measurements”); and
a fourth set of computer instructions executable on the processor capable of extracting anthropometric body measurements using the points of measure (Fig. 3a-3d, Fig. 7-8, Col. 9 Lns. 25-36: “As is shown in FIG. 7, after the procedures depicted in FIG. 1 are completed and the 3D polygonal mesh 318 has been imported into the 3D CAD design system 320, the initially performed task 200 involves defining and marking the body surface with measuring guidelines, landmarks, 3D planes, and 3D shape definition points. The next step 202 comprises capturing and recording 3D measuring data. In the final step 204, the 3D measurement data is exploited to allow, for example, the configuration of virtual mannequins, the automatic generation of garment patterns, or in a data base for the accurate prediction of sizes and the virtual trying on of garments”, Col. 10 Lns. 44-46: “A plurality of potential girth measurements are labeled in FIGS. 3a-3d with reference numbers 1-19 and are described hereinafter”; In addition, measurements are disclosed from Col. 10 Lns. 46-Col. 11 Lns. 49 of Chang).
However Chang does not explicitly disclose
one or more range cameras capable of capturing at least a first depth image of a surface of a body from at least a first point of view while the body is in a pose, and at least a second depth image of the surface of the body from at least a second point of view while the body remains in the pose, wherein each depth image of the first depth image and the second depth image contains a plurality of pixels, and wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a distance to the body;
a first set of computer instructions executable on the processor capable of calculating a first set of three dimensional points from the first depth image and a second set of three dimensional points from the second depth image.
Demers teaches
one or more range cameras capable of capturing at least a first depth image of a surface of a body from at least a first point of view while the body is in a pose, and at least a second depth image of the surface of the body from at least a second point of view while the body remains in the pose (Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 3 Lns. 58-60: “FIG. 6 shows six individual view of three-dimensional data points, one of which corresponds to each of the six sensors of the system of FIG. 1”, Col. 11 Lns. 19-25: “The intermediate output of the PMP process is a data cloud for each of the six views (see FIG. 6). These data clouds are combined such that the resultant output is an accurate composite point cloud (FIG. 7). The individual views are combined by knowing the exact orientation of each view with respect to one other. Their orientation is derived by calibrating the sensors 14a-14f”),
wherein each depth image of the first depth image and the second depth image contains a plurality of pixels, and wherein each pixel of the plurality of pixels includes a distance to the body (Fig. 6-7, Col. 6 Lns. 64-67: “The intersection of the plane projected from the projector 18 and the ray from the camera pixel defines the parameter k. Substituting k back into Equation 11.C.2 yields the (x,y,z) location of the imaged surface.”; Z is the depth/distance to the body);
a first set of computer instructions executable on the processor capable of calculating a first set of three dimensional points from the first depth image and a second set of three dimensional points from the second depth image ( Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 3 Lns. 58-60: “FIG. 6 shows six individual view of three-dimensional data points, one of which corresponds to each of the six sensors of the system of FIG. 1”, Col. 11 Lns. 18-24: “The intermediate output of the PMP process is a data cloud for each of the six views (see FIG. 6). These data clouds are combined such that the resultant output is an accurate composite point cloud (FIG. 7). The individual views are combined by knowing the exact orientation of each view with respect to one other. Their orientation is derived by calibrating the sensors 14a-14f”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined Chang with capturing human body with different cameras at different point of views and forming 3d models based on each of the point of views and other aspects of Demers since Chang suggested using various types of 3d scanner for its invention (Chang Col. 8 Lns. 1-6), including the Assignee of Demers (Textile and Clothing Technology Center).
Regarding claim 36, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Demers further teaches
a point of view of the body remaining fixed in space with the two or more range cameras remaining fixed in space with each range camera of the two or more range cameras having a different point of view with respect to a corresponding other range camera of the two or more range cameras (Fig. 1-2 and 6-7, Col. 3 Lns. 58-60: “FIG. 6 shows six individual view of three-dimensional data points, one of which corresponds to each of the six sensors of the system of FIG. 1”, Col. 11 Lns. 19-25: “The intermediate output of the PMP process is a data cloud for each of the six views (see FIG. 6). These data clouds are combined such that the resultant output is an accurate composite point cloud (FIG. 7). The individual views are combined by knowing the exact orientation of each view with respect to one other. Their orientation is derived by calibrating the sensors 14a-14f”).
Regarding claim 45, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
Demers further teaches
creating a three dimensional mesh from the final combined set of three dimensional points (Fig. 6-7, Col. 11 Lns. 19-25: “The intermediate output of the PMP process is a data cloud for each of the six views (see FIG. 6). These data clouds are combined such that the resultant output is an accurate composite point cloud (FIG. 7). The individual views are combined by knowing the exact orientation of each view with respect to one other. Their orientation is derived by calibrating the sensors 14a-14f”).
Claims 33, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) and Foote et al. (US 7,253,766 B2, hereinafter Foote).
Regarding claim 33, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a point of view of the body on a rotating pedestal while the one or more range cameras remain stationary.
Foote teaches
a point of view of the body on a rotating pedestal while the one or more range cameras remain stationary (Col. 3 Lns. 14-24: “Person 22 is positioned in scanning/illumination portal 30 of system 20. Portal 30 is configured for use in determining body measurements for tailored clothing, for other mensuration purposes, for placement at a security checkpoint where it is desired to detect weapons/contraband, and/or different purposes. Portal 30 includes platform 32 connected to motor 34. Platform 32 is arranged to support person 22 or such other object desired to be examined with system 20. Motor 34 is arranged to selectively rotate platform 32 about rotational axis R while person 22 or another object is positioned thereon.”, Col. 3 Lns. 37-39: “As motor 34 causes platform 32 to rotate about axis R, array 36 circumscribes a generally circular pathway P about axis R.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with rotating pedestal with stationary sensing array and other aspects of Foote since Chang, Demers, and Foote are all in similar endeavor of scanning human or object. In addition, the inclusion of techniques of Foote to effectively increase the efficiency of 3d scanning.
Regarding claim 35, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a point of view of the body remaining fixed in space while the one or more range cameras are moving to capture each of the first depth image and the second depth image.
Foote teaches
a point of view of the body remaining fixed in space while the one or more range cameras are moving to capture each of the first depth image and the second depth image (Fig. 19 and 23, Col. 18 Lns. 5-8: “Under the control of subsystem 240, motor/drive mechanism 234 is configured to controllably move each of arrays 236 along a corresponding travel path Pl or P2 as best illustrated in FIG. 19.”, Col. 21 Lns. 26-38: “System 420 includes scanning booth 430 coupled to control and processing subsystem 440. Scanning booth 430 includes stationary platform 432 arranged to support person 422 and frame 433 to support motor 434 coupled to array 436. In contrast to the platform rotation of portal 30 and translational movement associated with portal 330, scanning booth 430 selectively rotates array 436 about rotational axis R and platform 432 during interrogation. For this arrangement, array 436 follows a generally circular pathway to provide a corresponding imaginary cylinder about platform 432. In one form suitable for scanning a person in the standing position, the radius of this cylinder is about 1 meter. Array 436 is otherwise configured the same as array 36.”).
Regarding claim 37, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a point of view of the body with the one or more range cameras moving with respect to the body that moves while capturing the depth images.
Foote teaches
a point of view of the body with the one or more range cameras moving with respect to the body that moves while capturing the depth images (Col. 19 Lns. 8-19: “In one mode of operating this system, a person 222 under surveillance enters along the "ENTRY" arrow into region 239 between panels 238. Person 222 then turns and faces one of panels 238 for one to two seconds while arrays 236 move along paths Pl and P2 to perform the scan. Person 222 then turns and exits along the "EXIT" arrow after scanning. It is has been found that the 240° coverage provided by this approach is suitable to detect most objects that pose a threat to security. Panels 238 are each made to be at least partially transparent to facilitate viewing there through by an operator during the interrogation of person 222 in region 239.”, Col. 21 Lns. 26-38: “System 420 includes scanning booth 430 coupled to control and processing subsystem 440. Scanning booth 430 includes stationary platform 432 arranged to support person 422 and frame 433 to support motor 434 coupled to array 436. In contrast to the platform rotation of portal 30 and translational movement associated with portal 330, scanning booth 430 selectively rotates array 436 about rotational axis R and platform 432 during interrogation. For this arrangement, array 436 follows a generally circular pathway to provide a corresponding imaginary cylinder about platform 432. In one form suitable for scanning a person in the standing position, the radius of this cylinder is about 1 meter. Array 436 is otherwise configured the same as array 36.”).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers), FARAHBAKHSHIAN et al. (US 2019/0175069 A1, hereinafter Farahbakhshian) and Moore et al. (US 2017/0251143 A1, hereinafter Moore).
Regarding claim 34, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a point of view of the body on a wireless turntable while at least one of the one or more range cameras is moving to capture each of the first depth image and the second depth image.
Farahbakhshian teaches
a point of view of the body on a wireless turntable (Para [0038]: “It is advantageous if the wireless interface 33 is a WLAN, WIFI, Zigbee and/or Bluetooth interface.”, Para [0039]: “The wireless interface 33 allows the external computer to control the turntable, in particular the motor 12.”, Para [0086]: “The motor driven turntable according to the previous specification is used in an arrangement for fitness monitoring, personal biofeedback and/or medical diagnostic of a person. The arrangement comprises an apparatus for optical measurement of a body of the inspected person. The apparatus comprises the "external" computer. In a preferred embodiment the apparatus is a 3D body scanner and/or comprises at least one color camera, depth sensor and/or far infrared temperature sensor. The motor driven turntable is used to turn the person during the 3D body scan. Therefore, the computer of the 3D body scanner comprises a second wireless interface, which is wirelessly connected to the first wireless interface of the motor driven turntable. Thus, the motor driven turntable can be controlled by the computer of the apparatus.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with wireless rotating turntable of Farahbakhshian as Farahbakhshian suggests connecting the wireless turntable to a 3d scanning system.
However, Chang in view of Demers and Farahbakhshian does not explicitly teach
while at least one of the one or more range cameras is moving to capture each of the first depth image and the second depth image.
Moore teaches
while at least one of the one or more range cameras is moving to capture each of the first depth image and the second depth image (Para [0027]: “Each of these components may be coupled to each other over a communication path that may be a wired or wireless communication path, such as a web, the Internet, a wireless data network, a computer network, an Ethernet network, a cellular telephone network, a telephone network, Bluetooth and the like.”, Para [0028]: “In an alternate embodiment, the user may be stationary and one or more cameras 306 may rotate about the user to capture the body mesh of the user. Each scanner 102 may generate a body mesh of a user (from which an avatar may be created) and then the backend system 104 may assign an identifier to each body mesh package of each user.”, Para [0036]: “FIG. 9 illustrates the embodiment of the scanning device in which the user is stationary on the platform 302 and the standards 500 with the one or more cameras are moving relative to the user.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers and Farahbakhshian with capturing a 3d scan of a person on top of a turntable with moving cameras of Moore to as Moore also in the similar endeavor of 3d scanning and suggests connecting components wirelessly (Para [0027]) while also effectively reduce the processing time needed when 3d scanning a person.
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) and Peruch et al. (US 2017/0251143 A1, hereinafter Peruch).
Regarding claim 38, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a point of view of the body with one or more range cameras moving, stopping to take the first depth image, moving and then stopping again to take the second depth image.
Peruch teaches
a point of view of the body with one or more range cameras moving, stopping to take the first depth image, moving and then stopping again to take the second depth image (Figs. 1b, 3, 5, Para [0045]: “As such, aspects of embodiments of the present invention are directed to systems and methods to quickly build a complete or partial three-dimensional model of an object and/or a scene by aggregating depth (and, in some embodiments, color) information from multiple views (e.g., multiple positions or poses).”, Para [0079]: “Referring to FIG. 3, in operation 302, the processor (e.g., the host processor 108 in FIG. 2A or the processor 210 working in concert with the controller 108 of FIG. 2B) controls the scanning device to capture an initial image.”, Para [0103]: “In operation 308, the processor determines if the global coverage is sufficiently high and/or that the incremental coverage provided by any remaining pose is too low (e.g., satisfies a threshold value).”, Para [0104]: “On the other hand, if the analysis shows that the 3D scan would benefit from additional images captured from different poses, then the process continues with operation 312.”, Para [0105]: “In operation 312, the processor determines one or more poses that would improve coverage, and in operation 314, a next image is captured from a new pose, as guided by the one or more poses determined in operation 312. In operation 316, the guidance map is updated based on the additional images.”, Para [0107]: “For example, given an incremental coverage map, the processor can automatically determine a path that includes one or more poses that reduces or minimizes a cost function in operation 312. Images would be acquired as the depth camera moves along the path in operation 314 (e.g., automatically captured as the depth camera moves). This cost function could be defined in terms of shape information acquired (e.g., coverage) and of the time it would take to acquire this information following this path. The same coverage can be obtained by following different scanning paths, and that different paths could require different execution time, for example, due to the length of the path or whether the path crosses over regions that are already scanned, thereby resulting in oversampling.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with moving a camera from one point of view to another point of view of an object and taking photo at different point of views of Peruch to effectively reduce over-capture when creating a 3d model of an object.
Regarding claim 39, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
perform a first movement to the first point of view;
stop the first movement when the one or more range cameras are positioned at the first point of view; and
capture the first depth image from the first point of view while the one or more range cameras are stopped.
Peruch teaches
perform a first movement to the first point of view; stop the first movement when the one or more range cameras are positioned at the first point of view; and capture the first depth image from the first point of view while the one or more range cameras are stopped (Para [0104]: “On the other hand, if the analysis shows that the 3D scan would benefit from additional images captured from different poses, then the process continues with operation 312.”, Para [0105]: “In operation 312, the processor determines one or more poses that would improve coverage, and in operation 314, a next image is captured from a new pose, as guided by the one or more poses determined in operation 312. In operation 316, the guidance map is updated based on the additional images.”, Para [0107]: “For example, given an incremental coverage map, the processor can automatically determine a path that includes one or more poses that reduces or minimizes a cost function in operation 312. Images would be acquired as the depth camera moves along the path in operation 314 (e.g., automatically captured as the depth camera moves). This cost function could be defined in terms of shape information acquired (e.g., coverage) and of the time it would take to acquire this information following this path. The same coverage can be obtained by following different scanning paths, and that different paths could require different execution time, for example, due to the length of the path or whether the path crosses over regions that are already scanned, thereby resulting in oversampling.”).
Regarding claim 40, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
capture the first depth image from the first point of view while the one or more range cameras are moving; and
capture the second depth image from the second point of view while the one or more range cameras are not moving.
Peruch teaches
capture the first depth image from the first point of view while the one or more range cameras are moving (Para [0107]: “For example, given an incremental coverage map, the processor can automatically determine a path that includes one or more poses that reduces or minimizes a cost function in operation 312. Images would be acquired as the depth camera moves along the path in operation 314 (e.g., automatically captured as the depth camera moves). This cost function could be defined in terms of shape information acquired (e.g., coverage) and of the time it would take to acquire this information following this path. The same coverage can be obtained by following different scanning paths, and that different paths could require different execution time, for example, due to the length of the path or whether the path crosses over regions that are already scanned, thereby resulting in oversampling.”); and
capture the second depth image from the second point of view while the one or more range cameras are not moving (Para [0045]: “As such, aspects of embodiments of the present invention are directed to systems and methods to quickly build a complete or partial three-dimensional model of an object and/or a scene by aggregating depth (and, in some embodiments, color) information from multiple views (e.g., multiple positions or poses).”, Para [0105]: “In operation 312, the processor determines one or more poses that would improve coverage, and in operation 314, a next image is captured from a new pose, as guided by the one or more poses determined in operation 312. In operation 316, the guidance map is updated based on the additional images.”).
Claims 41 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) and Vassigh et al. (US 2011/0193939 A1, hereinafter Vassigh).
Regarding claim 41, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
minimizing differences between the first and second sets of three dimensional points.
Vassigh teaches
minimizing differences between the first and second sets of three dimensional points (Para [0119]: “The data structure may include scan results averaged from multiple depth images which are provide at different points in time by the depth camera system.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with averaging the scan data and other aspects of Vassigh as Vassigh is also in the similar endeavor of 3d body tracking that involves scanning and it is obvious to try to average multiple depth images to achieve the predictable result of higher accuracy of scanning.
Regarding claim 46, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
creating an avatar from the final combined set of three dimensional points.
Vassigh teaches
creating an avatar from the final combined set of three dimensional points (Fig. 6a, Para [0001]: “For instance, the motion of humans can be mapped to a three-dimensional (3-D) human skeletal model and used to create an animated character or avatar.”, Para [0118]: “The bitmask may then be analyzed for one or more body parts to generate a model such as a skeletal model, a mesh human model, or the like of the human target.”, Para [0120]: “Step 608 includes generating a model of the human target. In one embodiment, measurement values determined by the scanned bitmask may be used to define one or more joints in a skeletal model. The one or more joints are used to define one or more bones that correspond to a body part of a human.”).
Regarding claim 47, dependent upon claim 46, Chang in view of Demers and Vassigh teaches everything regarding claim 46.
Vassigh further teaches
the avatar is capable of display to a user on a network attached device over a network (Fig. 2a-4, Para [0062]: “In this example, the depth camera system 20, and computing environment 12 provide an application in which an avatar 197 on the display 196 track the movements of the user 8.”, Para [0064]: “gestures and/or movements performed by the user may be captured, analyzed, and tracked to perform one or more controls or actions within an application, such as animating an avatar or on-screen character or selecting a menu item in a user interface (UI),”, Para [0085]: “The video processing pipeline outputs data to an AN (audio/video) port 140 for transmission to a television or other display.”, Para [0098]: “The console 100 may receive additional inputs from the depth camera system 20 of FIG. 2a, including the cameras 26 and 28”, Para [0108]; “Most games will predominantly use full-body tracking, and in such cases the camera simply tracks the user's full body (skeleton). In this case, an intuitive form of on-screen user feedback is to represent the user's full body on the screen in the form of an avatar.”).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) and MILLER (US 2010/0295854 A1, hereinafter Miller).
.Regarding claim 42, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
performing rotating and translating the first and second sets of three dimensional points.
Miller teaches
performing rotating and translating the first and second sets of three dimensional points (Para [0034]: “The avatar is associated with a coordinate system which is fixed to it, and is indexed by three angular degrees of freedom (pitch, roll, and yaw), and three translational degrees of freedom of the rigid body center in three-space. In addition, individual features of the avatar, such as the chin, teeth and eyes may have their own local coordinates (e.g., chin axis) which form part of the avatar description”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with rotating and translating with three degrees of freedom for the avatar of Miller to effectively increase the efficiency of creating 3d model.
.
Claims 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 6,968,075 B1, hereinafter Chang), Demers et al. (US 6,373,963 B1, hereinafter Demers) and FARAHBAKHSHIAN et al. (US 2019/0175069 A1, hereinafter Farahbakhshian).
.Regarding claim 43, dependent upon claim 1, Chang in view of Demers teaches everything regarding claim 1.
However, Chang in view of Demers does not explicitly teach
a wireless turntable having a rotatable platform capable of rotating the body to provide the first and second points of view of the body, wherein the processor is further capable of wirelessly controlling rotation of the platform while the first and second depth images are being captured.
Farahbakhshian teaches
a wireless turntable having a rotatable platform capable of rotating the body to provide the first and second points of view of the body, wherein the processor is further capable of wirelessly controlling rotation of the platform while the first and second depth images are being captured (Para [0038]: “It is advantageous if the wireless interface 33 is a WLAN, WIFI, Zigbee and/or Bluetooth interface.”, Para [0039]: “The wireless interface 33 allows the external computer to control the turntable, in particular the motor 12.”, Para [0086]: “The motor driven turntable according to the previous specification is used in an arrangement for fitness monitoring, personal biofeedback and/or medical diagnostic of a person. The arrangement comprises an apparatus for optical measurement of a body of the inspected person. The apparatus comprises the "external" computer. In a preferred embodiment the apparatus is a 3D body scanner and/or comprises at least one color camera, depth sensor and/or far infrared temperature sensor. The motor driven turntable is used to turn the person during the 3D body scan. Therefore, the computer of the 3D body scanner comprises a second wireless interface, which is wirelessly connected to the first wireless interface of the motor driven turntable. Thus, the motor driven turntable can be controlled by the computer of the apparatus.”)..
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chang in view of Demers with wireless rotating turntable of Farahbakhshian as Farahbakhshian suggests connecting the wireless turntable to a 3d scanning system.
.Regarding claim 44, dependent upon claim 43, Chang in view of Demers and Farahbakhshian teaches everything regarding claim 43.
Farahbakhshian further teaches
a scale configured to communicate with the processor to provide weight data for the body (Para [0017]: “The invention relates to a motor driven turntable with integrated electronic scale for use in fitness monitoring, biofeedback or medical diagnostic apparatus for persons, in which data of weight and rotation angle of the turntable are supplied on a wireless computer interface, eg. MAN, WIFI, Zigbee and/or Bluetooth, and in which the rotation of the turntable is under control of an external computer.”, Para [0039]: “The wireless interface 33 provides the acquired data from the electronic module 14 to the external computer, which is not shown in the figures. The wireless interface 33 supplies data of the angular position of the top plate 1 and/or of the person's weight to the external computer”).
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Comaniciu et al. (US 7,508,979 B2, hereinafter Comaniciu) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Comaniciu discloses a system and method for detecting an occupant and head pose using stereo detectors is disclosed. In the training stage, pairs of images taken simultaneously from a pair of stereo cameras are received and components in each pair of images are identified. Features are associated with each component and a value is associated with each feature. Among them, a subset of features with best discriminative capabilities is selected and forms a strong classifier for a given component in a pair of images. In the detection stage, the strong classifiers are used in the incoming image pairs to detect components. Identified components are used to detect occupants and head pose of the occupants. Stereo detection is combined with stereo matching in a systematic way to improve occupant detection and localization.
Lucas (US 2016/0301910 A1, hereinafter Lucas) is prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Lucas discloses systems and techniques for real-time 3D reconstruction with a depth camera Depth measurements received from a depth camera of target may be stored in a depth-measurement data structure. A three-dimensional representation of the target may be stored in a model. A current depth image received from the depth camera may be registered to the model. The depth-measurement data structure may be modified with the current depth image based on the registration. The model may be deformed based on space carving and the modified depth measurement data structure.
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 JOSHUA CHEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5394. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9:30 am - 4:30pm ET F: 9:30 am - 2:30pm ET.
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, STEPHEN R KOZIOL can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/J. C./Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights