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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submissions filed on 6/22/2026 and 7/14/2026 has been entered.
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 6/22/2026 and 7/14/2026. Claims 1-3, 6-22 are presented for examination. Independent claims 1, 19, 20 were amended. Claims 4, 5 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant, with regard to claims 1, 19, 20, argues that Memo fails to teach “associating respective data included in the first sensing data group with sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure, and associating the second sensing data with common sites in the three-dimensional shape of the first structure”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
According to Memo, descriptors are extracted from the 3D point cloud for the target object. The descriptors correspond to features of the shape of the target object [0103-0106, also see 0011-0014]. The “respective data” corresponds to Memo’s descriptors. The “sites” correspond to Memo’s features of the shape of the target object. Also, the system compares the locations of defects on the target object with locations on the non-defective items [0106, 0151, 0177-0179]. The “common sites” correspond to the locations of the defects on the target object and the non-defective items. Therefore, Memo does teach “associating respective data included in the first sensing data group with sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure, and associating the second sensing data with common sites in the three-dimensional shape of the first structure”.
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 1-3, 6-22 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 1 recites “the same site” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “common sites” in line 4 and 16. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 4 is the same or different from the limitation in line 16.
Claim 1 recites “data of a three-dimensional shape of the first structure” in line 3 and “data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure” in line 13. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 3 is the same or different from the limitation in line 13.
Claim 2 recites “the same structure” and “the same design” in lines 2 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “sites of the first sensing data group” in lines 2-3 and “sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure” in lines 14-15 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 2-3 of claim 6 is the same or different from the limitation in lines 14-15 of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites “common sites” in line 2 and “common sites” in line 4 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 2 of claim 7 is the same or different from the limitation in line 4 of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “a relation” in line 5 and “a relation” in line 2 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 5 of claim 8 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “a relation” in line 6 and “a relation” in line 2 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 6 of claim 13 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2 of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites “the combination” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “sites of the whole images” in line 5 and “sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure” in lines 14-15 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 5 of claim 17 is the same or different from the limitation in lines 14-15 of claim 1.
Claim 18 recites “a relation” in lines 4-5 and “a relation” in line 2 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in lines 4-5 of claim 18 is the same or different from the limitation in line 2 of claim 1.
Claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1. Therefore, the claims 19 and 20 require similar corrections as claim 1.
Claim 22 recites “the collection of all defined inspection sites” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3, 9-12, 14-16, 21 depend on at least claim 1. Therefore, the claims are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Memo et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20180322623).
In regards to claim 1, Memo teaches an information processing device [Fig. 2C; e.g. depth camera system for processing captured images of an object, 0082, 0102-0103], comprising:
a managing part [e.g. defect detection system, 0054] that manages a relation between a first sensing data group [e.g. captured 3D data, 0053-0054] regarding a first structure [e.g. object, 0116-0117] or data of a three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. 3-D shape, 0116-0117], and second sensing data regarding a second structure [e.g. aligning the 3-D point clouds of the object at different locations and orientations by comparing two shapes of the object at different locations and orientations, 0073, 0116-0117] so that common sites of the first structure and the second structure can be compared with each other [e.g. comparing the pixel locations of the features of the object, 0063, 0090], wherein
the managing part manages the relation based on:
(i) the first sensing data group including a plurality of data of the same site that are obtained in a state where a position, a posture, or both of a sensor are different [e.g. The target object is captured at different poses and different locations. The multiple depth images can be captured by moving a single depth camera over multiple different poses. More specifically, the system receives computed color data by imaging the same portion (or “patch”) of the surface of the target object from multiple poses, 0121, 0123]; and
(ii) data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. 3-D shape, 0116-0117], by associating respective data included in the first sensing data group with sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. Descriptors are extracted from the 3D point cloud for the target object. The descriptors correspond to features of the shape of the target object, 0103-0106, also see 0011-0014], and associating the second sensing data with common sites in the three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. comparing the locations of defects on the target object with locations on the non-defective items, 0106, 0151, 0177-0179].
In regards to claim 2, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first structure and the second structure are the same structure at different points in time [e.g. The target object is captured at different poses. The multiple depth images can be captured by moving a single depth camera over multiple different poses. Each pose change corresponds to a different point in time, 0121].
In regards to claim 3, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an estimation part [e.g. feature detecting convolutional neural network, 0013] that estimates the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and a three-dimensional shape of the second structure based on the first sensing data group and the second sensing data [e.g. identify shapes of one or more features of the 3-D model at different poses based on the 3-D cloud points, 0013, 0016, 0073, 0121], wherein the managing part manages, based on the data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and data of the three-dimensional shape of the second structure, the relation between the first sensing data group and the second sensing data so that the common sites of the first structure and the second structure can be compared with each other [see rejection of claim 1], the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and the three-dimensional shape of the second structure being estimated by the estimation part [e.g. the shapes of the one or more features of the 3-D model at different poses are identified by the feature detecting convolutional neural network, 0013, 0016, 0073, 0121].
In regards to claim 4, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein: the estimation part estimates the three-dimensional shape of the first structure based on the first sensing data group [see rejection of claim 3], and estimates the three-dimensional shape of the second structure based on a second sensing data group that is a collection of the second sensing data [e.g. identify shapes of one or more features of the 3-D model at different poses based on the 3-D cloud points of the non-defective good objects, 0013, 0016, 0054, 0073, 0121]; and the managing part associates respective data included in the first sensing data group with sites of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. Descriptors are extracted from the 3D point cloud for the target object. The descriptors correspond to features of the shape of the target object, 0103-0106, also see 0011-0014], and associates respective data included in the second sensing data group with sites of the three-dimensional shape of the second structure [e.g. Descriptors are extracted from the 3D point cloud for the non-defective object. The descriptors correspond to features of the shape of the non-defective object, 0103-0106, also see 0011-0014].
In regards to claim 5, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein: the estimation part estimates a single three-dimensional shape that reflects both of the first structure and the second structure [e.g. obtaining a cloud point by merging multiple aligned individual point clouds, 0121-0122, 0124]; and the managing part associates respective data included in the first sensing data group with sites of the single three-dimensional shape, and associates the second sensing data with sites of the single three-dimensional shape [e.g. Descriptors are extracted from the merged 3D point cloud for the target object, wherein the merged 3D point cloud has multiple aligned individual point clouds. The descriptors correspond to features of the shape of the target object, 0103-0106, also see 0011-0014].
In regards to claim 6, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the three-dimensional shape of the first structure is previously provided [e.g. multiple representative non-defective units are acquired and their corresponding descriptors are stored, 0179], and sites of the first sensing data group in the data of the three-dimensional shape are specified [e.g. non-defective folds on the leather surface may occur at different locations, 0179], the managing part performs checking between the data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and the first sensing data group, and the second sensing data [e.g. When performing the defect detection operation on a target object, the defect detection module computes distances between the descriptor of the target unit and the descriptors of each of the stored non-defective units, 0179], thereby associating the second sensing data with common sites in the three-dimensional shape of the first structure [e.g. comparing the locations of defects on the target object with locations on the non-defective items, 0106, 0151, 0177-0179], the common sites being common to sites of the second structure corresponding to the second sensing data, or data corresponding to the common sites included in the first sensing data group [e.g. the locations of the non-defective surfaces are similar to the locations of the defective surfaces, 0177-0180].
In regards to claim 7, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the managing part associates common sites with each other [e.g. determining similarity metrics between defective surfaces and non-defective surfaces, 0177-0180], the common sites corresponding to each other between the data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and the data of the three-dimensional shape of the second structure [e.g. the locations of the non-defective surfaces are similar to the locations of the defective surfaces, 0177-0180].
In regards to claim 8, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a detection part [e.g. defect detection module, 0179] that detects a difference between the common sites of the first structure and the second structure based on the first sensing data group or the data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and on the second sensing data [e.g. distance between the defective surfaces and the non-defective surfaces, 0106, 0177-0180], a relation therebetween being managed by the managing part [e.g. similarity metrics between defective surfaces and non-defective surfaces are managed by the defect detection system, 0177-0180, also see 0152, 0155].
In regards to claim 9, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the detection part classifies a site [e.g. classifying the location of the defect, 0054, 0056, 0068, 0180] where the difference is found of the common sites of the first structure and the second structure [e.g. distance between the descriptor of the target object under consideration and the descriptor of each such non-defective and defective samples, 0180] in accordance with a content of the difference [e.g. low or high confidence score, 0180], an extent of the difference [e.g. distance between the descriptor of the target object under consideration and the descriptor of each such non-defective and defective samples, 0180], or both [e.g. confidence score and distance, 0180].
In regards to claim 11, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a determination part that determines whether each of the first sensing data group and a second sensing data group that is a collection of the second sensing data includes data of predetermined common sites of the first structure and the second structure [e.g. determining whether the surfaces of the target object or trained data of samples includes pre-trained data of defects, 0152, 0156, 0158. 0180].
In regards to claim 12, Memo teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the first sensing data group include a plurality of data of the same site that are obtained in a state where a position, a posture, or both of the sensor are different [e.g. The target object is captured at different poses and different locations. The multiple depth images can be captured by moving a single depth camera over multiple different poses. More specifically, the system receives computed color data by imaging the same portion (or “patch”) of the surface of the target object from multiple poses, 0121, 0123].
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in the form of a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program that causes an information processing device to execute a process including the steps of claim 1. Furthermore, Memo teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium [e.g. memory, 0020] storing a program [e.g. instructions, 0020] that causes an information processing device [e.g. system, 0020] to execute a process including the steps of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 13-18 are 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.
In regards to claim 10, Memo fails to teach or suggest the information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the detection part attaches labels representing features to the data of the first sensing data group and the second sensing data corresponding to the common sites of the first structure and the second structure, thereby detecting the difference between the common sites of the first structure and the second structure based on difference between the labels of the data.
In regards to claim 13, Memo fails to teach or suggest the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a display part that displays data of the first sensing data group and the second sensing data corresponding to a combination of the common sites of the first structure and the second structure so that the data of the first sensing data group and the second sensing data can be compared with each other, based on the first sensing data group or the data of the three-dimensional shape of the first structure and on the second sensing data, a relation therebetween being managed by the managing part.
In regards to claims 14-18, the claims depend on at least claim 13. Therefore, the claims 14-18 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 13 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights