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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 have been previously presented.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/02/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RealityCapture tutorial: Complete model in PPI" by Capturing Reality (hereinafter “RC Tutorial”) in view of Schuetz, “Interactive Exploration of Point Clouds”, Technische Universitaet Wien; reposiTUm, pages 55-66 (Hereinafter “Schuetz”).
Regarding Claim 20, RC Tutorial teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a display; memory; and one or more processors configured to: display, using the display, a first representation of a three-dimensional object including a point cloud (Figure 1, Point cloud);
PNG
media_image1.png
480
871
media_image1.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
582
906
media_image2.png
Greyscale
while displaying the first representation, receive an input requesting generation of a second representation of the three-dimensional object, the second representation including a three-dimensional mesh reconstruction of the three-dimensional object (Modified Figure 2, Calculate Model);
RC Tutorial, Modified Figure 2
PNG
media_image3.png
805
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 3
PNG
media_image4.png
802
1429
media_image4.png
Greyscale
after generating the second representation, display the second representation of the three-dimensional object and cease displaying the first representation of three-dimensional object and the first visual indication of the progress. (Figure 4, Second representation)
RC Tutorial, Figure 4
RC Tutorial fails to teach:
in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the second representation,
display a first visual indication of progress of the generation of the second representation of the three-dimensional object, wherein the first visual indication of the progress includes changing an appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress.
However, Schuetz teaches a progressive point-cloud rendering method wherein a point cloud is rendered over multiple frames (Page 47, 3.3 Progressive Rendering) which changes an appearance of a point cloud in real time while remaining data is being loaded (Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading).
RC Tutorial and Schuetz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. The distinction between a first visual indication of progress which includes changing an appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress and a progress bar (RC Tutorial, pg. 53 ‘Adaptive Fill Budget’, Figure 3, Reconstruction in Normal Detail progress bar) is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified RC Tutorial to incorporate the teachings of Schuetz to provide an electronic device configured to in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the second representation, display a first visual indication of progress of the generation of the second representation of the three-dimensional object, wherein the first visual indication of the progress includes changing an appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress. Doing so would provide the user an additional element of feedback, alongside the progress bar, to visualize the progression of the model’s generation.
Method Claim 1 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in Claim 20. Therefore, method Claim 1 corresponds to apparatus Claim 20 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness used above.
Regarding Claim 19, it differs from Claim 1 only in that it is a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform the method of Claim 1. It recites similar limitations as in Claim 1 and RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz discloses them.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial as modified by Schuetz.
Regarding Claim 2, RC Tutorial teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein receiving, an input (Figure 6, Align Images, Element 2) requesting generation of the point cloud from a plurality of images (Figure 6, Plurality of Images, Element 1) of the three-dimensional object from different perspectives (Figure 5, Adding a plurality of images from different perspectives); and after generating the point cloud, displaying the point cloud (Figure 7, Generated Point Cloud.)
PNG
media_image5.png
655
1160
media_image5.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 5
PNG
media_image6.png
802
1424
media_image6.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 6
PNG
media_image7.png
653
1161
media_image7.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 7
RC Tutorial fails to teach the following limitations:
in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the point cloud:displaying a representation of a plurality of points;
while displaying the plurality of points, displaying a second visual indication of progress of the generation of the point cloud different from the first visual indication of progress, wherein the second visual indication of the progress includes changing an appearance of the plurality of points corresponding to the progress;
However, Schuetz teaches a progressive point-cloud rendering method wherein a point cloud is rendered over multiple frames (Page 47, 3.3 Progressive Rendering) which changes an appearance of a point cloud in real time while remaining data is being loaded (Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading). This method ensures real-time frame rates at all times while at the same time converging to the full result over the course of multiple frames. (Page 44, 3.1 Introduction).
RC Tutorial and Schuetz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. The distinction between a second visual indication of progress of the generation of the point cloud including changing an appearance of the plurality of points corresponding to the progress and a progress bar (RC Tutorial, Figure 6, Aligning Images progress bar, Element 3) is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified RC Tutorial to incorporate the teachings of Schuetz to provide the method limitation, in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the point cloud, displaying a representation of a plurality of points and while displaying the plurality of points, displaying a second visual indication of progress of the generation of the point cloud different from the first visual indication of progress, wherein the second visual indication of the progress includes changing an appearance of the plurality of points corresponding to the progress. Doing so would provide the user an additional element of feedback, alongside the progress bar, to visualize the progression of the point cloud's generation.
Regarding Claim 4, Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein a size and/or density of the displayed point cloud differs from a size and/or density of the plurality of points. (Page 55, 3.3.4 Convergence; Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading). The limitation Claim 4 is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 5, Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the progress includes one or more of changing a position of the first representation corresponding to the progress, changing a size of the first representation corresponding to the progress, and changing a density of the plurality of points of the first representation corresponding to the progress. (Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading). The limitations of Claim 5 are considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 6, RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 2 wherein in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the point cloud (RC Tutorial Figure 6, Align Images, Element 2): concurrently displaying a third visual indication of progress of the generation of the point cloud along with the second visual indication (Schuetz, Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading), wherein the third visual indication of progress is different from the first visualization visual indication of progress, and wherein the third visual indication of progress is a progress bar (RC Tutorial, Figure 6, Aligning Images progress bar, Element 3).
Regarding Claim 7, RC Tutorial teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein in accordance with the input requesting the generation of the second representation (Modified Figure 2, Calculate Model):concurrently displaying a fourth visual indication of progress of the generation of the second representation of the three-dimensional object along with the first visual indication, wherein
the fourth visual indication is different from the second visual indication of progress, and wherein
the fourth visual indication of progress is a progress bar (RC Tutorial, Figure 3, Reconstruction in Normal Detail progress bar).
Regarding Claim 9, Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein corresponding to the progress comprises changing a percentage of the plurality of points to coincide with the percentage of progress. (Page 55, 3.3.4 Convergence; Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading). The limitation of Claim 9 is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Regarding Claim 12, RC Tutorial teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein displaying, using the display, a user interface element for receiving an input of a quality corresponding to the generation of the second representation of the three-dimensional object and receiving the input of the quality corresponding to the generation of the second representation (RC Tutorial, Modified Figure 2, Calculate Model, normal quality, high quality), wherein the second representation is generated at the quality in accordance with the input of the quality (RC Tutorial, Figure 3, Reconstruction in Normal Detail).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz, and in further view of Lachambre et al. "Unity Photogrammetry Workflow", Developer – Rendering Research, (2017-06-23), pages 55 - 64 (Hereinafter “Lachambre”).
Regarding Claim 3, RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein the first representation has one or more characteristics of the plurality of images. (RC Tutorial, Figure 7, Generated Point Cloud.)
However, Lachambre further demonstrates the method of Claim 2 wherein the plurality of points has one or more characteristics of the plurality of images. (Page 61, 5.2.8. Colorize or Texture.)
RC Tutorial, Schuetz, and Lachambre are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. Lachambre teaches that colors from the source photos are transferred to textures, the recommended option for storing color information if a point cloud is sparse or if there are significant gaps in the reconstruction (Lachambre, Page 61, 5.2.8. Colorize or texture). Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lachambre to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial and Schuetz to provide the plurality of points has one or more characteristics of the plurality of images. Doing so would provide the user a preview of characteristics that will be present in the generated mesh representation.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz, and further in view of Bui et. al U.S Patent No 10,192,347 (hereinafter Bui).
Regarding Claim 10, RC Tutorial teaches the method of Claim 2, wherein displaying, using the display, a user interface element on one or more of the plurality of images (Figure 6, Plurality of Images, Element 1).
RC Tutorial fails to teach:
receiving an input using the user interface element to update one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images;
updating the one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images to generate an updated plurality of images; and
generating the point cloud from updated plurality of images.
However, Bui teaches receiving an input using the user interface element to update one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images (Fig. 2, Preprocess data 204; Col. 5, Lines 19-21, Lines 21-23, Lines 64-66); updating the one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images to generate an updated plurality of images (Fig. 2, Register to current model 206; Col. 5, Lines 28-32); and generating the point cloud from updated plurality of images (Col. 5, Line 25).
RC Tutorial, Schuetz and Bui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bui to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz to provide receiving an input using the user interface element to update one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images; updating the one or more characteristics of the one or more of the plurality of images to generate an updated plurality of images; and generating the point cloud from updated plurality of images. Doing so would provide the user with the ability to make changes as desired to select imported images and proceed with point cloud generation rather than having to remove and reupload images if adjustments are necessary.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz, and in further view of Capturing Reality, “Datasheet- RealityCapture TARASQUE 1.2”, Epic Games Slovakia s.r.o; CapturingReality, pages 1-5 (Hereinafter “Datasheet”).
Regarding Claim 11, RC Tutorial teaches the method of Claim 1 in which receiving a capture bundle captured by a second electronic device different from the electronic device. (RC Tutorial, Figure 5, Adding a plurality of images from different perspectives). RC Tutorial fails to teach receiving the first representation of the three-dimensional object including the point cloud from a capture bundle. However, Datasheet teaches receiving the first representation of the three-dimensional object including the point cloud from a capture bundle captured by a second electronic device different from the electronic device. (Page 2, Capturing data – Imports, laser scans).
RC Tutorial, Schuetz, and Datasheet are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz to provide receiving the first representation of the three-dimensional object including the point cloud from a capture bundle captured by a second electronic device different from the electronic device. Doing so broadens the range of subjects that a user can captured and create a three-dimensional representation of.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial as modified by Schuetz, in further view of Lachambre, and in further view of “Process a 3D Scan with projection in Reality Capture (RC)” by PI3DScan (Hereinafter “PI3DScan”).
Regarding Claim 13, RC Tutorial in view of Lachambre teach the method of Claim 3, in which receiving an input to define a cropping region for the first representation (Lachambre, Page 60, 5.2.7. Create the model, Set the reconstruction region); and generating the second representation (RC Tutorial, Modified Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4) based on the first representation within the cropping region (Lachambre, Page 60, 5.2.7. Create the model, Select the model quality).
RC Tutorial in view of Lachambre fails to teach while displaying the first representation, receiving an input to define a cropping region for the first representation.
However, PI3DScan teaches while displaying the first representation, receiving an input to define a cropping region for the first representation (Modified Figure 1, Set Reconstruction Region, Element 1); and generating the second representation based on the first representation within the cropping region (Modified Figure 2, Generate the model, Element 2.)
PNG
media_image8.png
724
1249
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PI3D Scan, Modified Figure 1
PNG
media_image9.png
704
1020
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PI3D Scan, Modified Figure 2
RC Tutorial, Schuetz, Lachambre, and PI3D Scan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PI3D Scan to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial, Schuetz, and Lachambre to demonstrate while displaying the first representation, receiving an input to define a cropping region for the first representation. Doing so would be an important user-guided function preventing unnecessary processing during the generation of the second representation.
Claim 8 and Claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz, and further in view of “Coloring a point cloud using 3DF Zephyr Pro” by 3DFlow (Hereinafter “3D Flow”).
Regarding Claim 8, RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 1, changing the appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress (Schuetz, Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading).
RC Tutorial as modified by Schuetz fails to teach lightening a color of the first representation. However, 3D Flow teaches the limitation of lightening a color (3D Flow, Figure 1, Color point cloud window, element 4; Modified Figure 2, Point Cloud Color, element 10) of the first representation (3D Flow, Figure 1, Point cloud, element 6).
PNG
media_image10.png
572
1095
media_image10.png
Greyscale
3D Flow, Figure 1
PNG
media_image11.png
790
700
media_image11.png
Greyscale
3D Flow, Modified Figure 2
RC Tutorial, Schuetz, and 3D Flow are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. The limitation of Claim 8 is considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified 3D Flow to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz to provide changing the appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress comprises lightening a color of the first representation. Doing so would provide the user an additional layer of visual feedback regarding the progress of the generation of the second representation.
Regarding Claim 16, 3D Flow in view of RC Tutorial as modified by Schuetz teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein changing the appearance of the first representation corresponding to the progress (Schuetz, Page 49, 3.3.2 Loading) comprises lightening the plurality of points as the progress increases, changing a color of the plurality of points from greyscale to color as the progress increases, or a combination of these (3D Flow, Figure 1, “Color point cloud window”, element 4; Modified Figure 2, Point Cloud Color, element 10). The limitations of Claim 16 are considered a design choice, as the specification does not provide any evidence of a functional difference or specific technical benefit resulting from this limitation.
Claim 14 and Claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial as modified Schuetz, in view of Lachambre, and in further view of 3D Flow.
Regarding Claim 14, 3D Flow teaches the method of Claim 3, wherein the point cloud is displayed in grey scale (Step 2- Importing the point cloud; Figure 1, “Color point cloud window”, element 4; Modified Figure 2, Point Cloud Color, element 10).
Regarding Claim 15, it differs from Claim 14 only in that the point cloud is displayed in color. It recites similar limitations as in Claim 14 and 3D Flow discloses them.
Claim 17 and Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RC Tutorial as modified by Schuetz, in view of Lachambre, and in further view of “Reality Capture: Exporting Mesh” by Lor Cas (hereinafter “RC Export”).
Regarding Claim 17, RC Tutorial in view of Lachambre teaches the method of Claim 1 in which displaying, using the display, a user interface element for exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object (RC Tutorial, Figure 8, Export button, Element 1); receiving an input requesting an export of the second representation of the three- dimensional object using the user interface element for exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object (Lachambre, Pages 62-64, 5.2.10. Mesh export).
PNG
media_image12.png
441
782
media_image12.png
Greyscale
RC Tutorial, Figure 8
RC Tutorial in view of Lachambre fails to exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object in accordance with the input requesting an export of the second representation of the three-dimensional object.
However, RC Export teaches exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object in accordance with the input requesting an export of the second representation of the three-dimensional object. (Figure 1, Export Mesh; Figure 2, Export Model; Figure 3, Exporting Process);
PNG
media_image13.png
648
1153
media_image13.png
Greyscale
RC Export, Figure 1
PNG
media_image14.png
648
1152
media_image14.png
Greyscale
RC Export, Figure 2
PNG
media_image15.png
646
1152
media_image15.png
Greyscale
RC Export, Figure 3
RC Tutorial, Lachambre, and RC Export are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of 3D model generation. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified RC Export to incorporate the teachings of RC Tutorial in view of Lachambre to exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object in accordance with the input requesting an export of the second representation of the three-dimensional object. Doing so would be a logical next step in the sequence of events for a user exporting the second representation of the three-dimensional object.
PNG
media_image16.png
650
1150
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 18, RC Export teaches the method of Claim 1 wherein displaying, using the display, a user interface element for storing or saving the second representation of the three-dimensional object; receiving an input requesting the one or more of a store or a save of the second representation of the three-dimensional object using the user interface element for storing or saving the second representation of the three-dimensional object; and storing or saving the second representation of the three-dimensional object in accordance with the input requesting the store or save of the second representation of the three-dimensional object. (Figure 4, Save Mesh)
RC Export, Figure 4
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, the applicant argues that the rendering method of Schuetz cannot be considered a visual indication of the generation of the second representation because Schuetz only has one representation. However, claim 1 was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Schuetz alone. Claim 1 was rejected by the combination of RC in view of Schuetz, wherein the mesh model of RC Tutorial in Fig. 2 is further modified by Schuetz to produce the second representation in which an indication is provided as a visual adjustment of the surface of the object continually in real time (Schuetz pg. 53 ‘Adaptive Fill Budget’). Therefore, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the applicant’s arguments are clearly unpersuasive in view of the teachings of RC Tutorial in view of Schuetz.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Said Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-2931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5pm.
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.
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.
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612