DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment/response filed on 18 February 2026, which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
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 21, 22, 27-29, 34-36, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davison et al. (US 6,668,082; hereinafter “Davison”) in view of Huang et al. (US 2013/0201301; hereinafter “Huang”), and further in view of Duvdevani et al. (WO 01/11565; hereinafter “Duvdevani”).
Regarding claim 21, Davison discloses A method for creating a 3D model of a real-world structure (“creating a three-dimensional model of an object,” abstract), the method comprising: identifying one or more landmarks in each image of a plurality of images of a real-world structure (“initial feature matching is performed to match features within the different images taken of the object,” col. 7, lines 25-30; “This first initial feature matching technique is automatic, in the sense that no input from the user is required,” col. 10, lines 10-15); detecting one or more non-correlating landmarks among the identified landmarks in an image of the plurality of images, wherein the non-correlating landmarks do not correlate to the one or more identified landmarks in one or more other images of the plurality of images (“define the similarity measure between a given corner point in the first image and each corner point in the second image … the degree of similarity is not sufficient to store the points as matching points,” col. 13, lines 10-45); correlating the one or more identified landmarks in the image with one or more identified landmarks in the one or more other images of the plurality of images (“re-performs initial feature matching,” col. 9, lines 50-55); and generating a virtual 3D model of the real-world structure based, at least in part, on the correlations (“uses the results to generate 3D data … generate a single set of points in a three-dimensional space correctly positioned to represent points on the surface of the object,” col. 41, lines 35-40).
Davison does not disclose generating a user notification to recapture the image having non-correlating landmarks from at least one of a different angle or position than an angle or position from which the image was previously captured; subsequently receiving a recaptured image; identifying one or more landmarks in the recaptured image; and correlating the one or more identified landmarks in the recaptured image.
In the same art of capturing multiple viewpoint images, Huang teaches generating a user notification to recapture the image having non-correlating landmarks from at least one of a different angle or position than an angle or position from which the image was previously captured; subsequently receiving a recaptured image; identifying one or more landmarks in the recaptured image; and correlating the one or more identified landmarks in the recaptured image (“determine if the candidate image exhibits acceptable similarity to the initial image. Acceptable similarity to the initial image could include the presence of the target object in both the initial and candidate images as well as similar background features in both images, among other possibilities,” para. 80; “If the image quality and/or the image similarity is insufficient, method step 422 [of Fig. 4] serves to provide a further instruction … the further instruction could include a message for the user to acquire a different candidate image,” para. 86; “capture another candidate image. Finally, upon acceptable candidate image capture, controller 112 may be instructed to create the stereoscopic 3-D image,” para. 93).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Huang to Davison. The motivation would have been to assist a user with capturing more optimal images.
The combination of Davison and Huang does not disclose generating labels for the one or more identified landmarks or wherein labels of the one or more non-correlating landmarks do not correlate to labels of the one or more identified landmarks in one or more other images.
In the same art of correlating landmarks between images, Duvdevani teaches generating labels for the one or more identified landmarks and wherein labels of the one or more non-correlating landmarks do not correlate to labels of the one or more identified landmarks in one or more other images (“Comparison is preferably based on a comparison of CELs [contour elements] in the image of the object being inspected to CELs in a reference image for the region correlating to the region,” pg. 20, para. 1; “identifies CELs and morphological features, correlates them to a location in the reference image,” pg. 33, para. 3; “ILLEGAL MATCH - is a feature detected in an online inspection mode that matches to a feature in a reference, but for which the reference feature is different. For example, the online feature is JUNCTION but the reference feature is an OPEN END,” pg. 53).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Duvdevani to the combination of Davison and Huang. The motivation would have been to increase correlation accuracy.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani renders obvious in response to detecting one or more non-correlating landmarks among the identified landmarks in an image of the plurality of images, identifying one or more new landmarks in the image (“re-performs initial feature matching for the three images at step S42 … using a second technique … with a different number of matched points in the images as input (the number increasing each time step S42 is repeated),” Davison, col. 9, lines 55-65); and detecting one or more non-correlating landmarks among the new identified landmarks before generating a user notification to recapture the image, wherein the non-correlating new landmarks do not correlate to the one or more identified landmarks in one or more other images of the plurality of images (“determine if the candidate image exhibits acceptable similarity to the initial image. Acceptable similarity to the initial image could include the presence of the target object in both the initial and candidate images as well as similar background features in both images, among other possibilities,” Huang, para. 80; “If the image quality and/or the image similarity is insufficient, method step 422 [of Fig. 4] serves to provide a further instruction … the further instruction could include a message for the user to acquire a different candidate image,” Huang, para. 86; see claim 21 for motivation to combine). Regarding the claimed order of steps, it would have been obvious to exhaust the feature matching techniques of Davison (e.g. the attempt to match new landmarks after failing to match the original landmarks) prior to instructing a user to perform the additional step of acquiring a new image. Such an ordering would produce matched feature points quicker and with less potential work for a user.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani renders obvious wherein the one or more landmarks correspond to one or more of: a gable, windows, doors, a marking on a side of the real-world structure, and an apex of a roof (“reference markings,” Davison, col. 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claims 28, 29, and 34, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 21, 22, and 27, respectively, with the additional limitations of Non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by a system comprising one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (“a central processing unit (CPU) connected to a memory operable to store a program defining the operations to be performed by the CPU,” Davison, col. 6, lines 5-15).
Regarding claims 35, 36, and 41, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 21, 22, and 27, respectively, with the additional limitations of A system for forming a 3D model of a real-world structure, the system comprising: one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (“a central processing unit (CPU) connected to a memory operable to store a program defining the operations to be performed by the CPU,” Davison, col. 6, lines 5-15).
Claims 23, 24, 30, 31, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani, and further in view of Bender et al. (US 2017/0097236; hereinafter “Bender”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani does not disclose wherein generating a user notification to recapture the image comprises identifying an area in the image having incorrectly identified landmarks.
In the same art of 3D reconstruction, Bender teaches wherein generating a user notification to recapture the image comprises identifying an area in the image having incorrectly identified landmarks (“the processor may notify the user in situations where the image comparisons … were unsuccessful … The processor may specifically provide the user with an indicator of which aspects of the part need to be recaptured,” para. 35).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Bender to the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani. The motivation would have been so that “the image comparisons are to be successful on a second attempt” (Bender, para. 35).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Davison, Huang, Duvdevani, and Bender renders obvious wherein the notification provides an indication to recapture the identified area from the at least one of the different angle or position (“a message for the user to acquire a different candidate image,” Huang, para. 86; see claim 21 for motivation to combine).
Regarding claims 30 and 31, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 23 and 24, respectively.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejections of claims 23 and 24, respectively.
Claims 25, 32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2015/0009214; hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani does not disclose identifying a structure category, from a plurality of structure categories, applicable to the real-world structure, wherein the structure categories comprise structure data that define an overall peripheral shape of structures belonging to each structure category.
In the same art of 3D reconstruction, Lee teaches identifying a structure category, from a plurality of structure categories, applicable to the real-world structure, wherein the structure categories comprise structure data that define an overall peripheral shape of structures belonging to each structure category (“use knowledge of the object type to construct a 3D model ... by starting with a Reference Model (RM), which has a known shape that is similar to the object to be modeled and analyzed,” para. 171; “global shape,” para. 171; “the 3D Model retains its overall shape,” para. 179; see also Fig. 24A which illustrates overall peripheral shape data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Lee to the combination of Davison, Huang, and Duvdevani. The motivation would have been to enhance the accuracy of the models and to increase the convenience of a user.
Regarding claims 32 and 39, they are rejected using the same citations and rationales described in the rejection of claim 25.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26, 33, and 40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The limitations of claims 26, 33, and 40 were previously rejected using the reference Eibert et al. (US 5,621,807; hereinafter “Eibert”). However, in view of the narrowing amendments to the independent claims, when claims 26, 33, and 40 are considered as a whole, and in the context of all of the interdependent/interconnected features of the independent claims and the intermediate claims, the known prior art would not have rendered obvious calculating a reprojection error based on the comparison; and determining, based on the reprojection error, whether a particular structure category of the one or more identified structure categories is a correct structure category for the real-world structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 Ryan McCulley whose telephone number is (571)270-3754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN MCCULLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights