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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments filed on 01/06/2026.
This action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the examiner maintains the rejection of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, along with the dependent claims. For instance, the examiner maintains the use of the terms “using” indicates intended use. The examiner suggests implementing additional functional language and replace the term “using” with “including.” Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(b) indefinite rejection for lack on clear and concise language, the examiner maintains the rejection. The examiner maintains that the claims are silent in providing clear and concise language to execute the claimed invention for generating 3D models. The claim amendments fell short to address the 112(b) rejection. Therefore, the examiner asserts that this claim limitation is rendered as indefinite. The examiner provided suggestions below, relating to overcoming this rejection. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, the examiner is not persuaded. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating 3D models (using generic computers components), without significantly more. One page 6 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the Applicant mentioned “This process includes the execution of highly specialized algorithms that transform textual input and multi-view image data into a coherent and detailed 3D representation. The transformation of two or more images captured from different viewpoints into a unified 3D model utilizes computational techniques such as feature extraction, image registration, and volumetric rendering-operations that far exceed the mere mental processing capabilities of a human.” None of which is mentioned in the independent claims. The examiner suggests incorporating functional steps such as “transformation of two or more images captured from different viewpoints into a unified 3D model utilizes computational techniques such as feature extraction, image registration, and volumetric rendering-operations” into the independent claim language. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on pages 8-10 of the remarks: “However, Gausebeck does not generate a 3D model of an object using two or more images of different objects (one or more second objects) taken from different viewpoints.”. The examiner is not persuaded. Gausebeck explicitly discloses one or more neural networks in Column 5, Lines 7-24. Gausebeck goes on to disclose in Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15 “textual data”, in which is the same as the Applicant’s claim language of “to use one or more textual descriptions.” Moreover, Gausebeck teachings of “3D floorplan model” in Column 19, Lines 5-15 is equivalent to the Applicant’s claim language of “generate one or more three-dimensional (3D) models”. Additionally, Gausebeck discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “one or more first objects based, at least in part, on two or more images of one or more second objects” in Column 7, Lines 9-55. Gausebeck goes on to disclose two or more viewpoints in Column 11, Lines 35-45. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
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 1-21 are 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites “using”. The use of the terms “using” indicates intended use. Therefore, this claim limitation is rendered as indefinite. The examiner suggests implementing additional functional language and replace the term “using” with “including.”
Claim 1, 8 and 15 is related to generating 3D models. However, the Applicant is silent in providing the clear and concise steps to execute the claimed invention for generating 3D models. Therefore, this claim limitation is rendered as indefinite. The examiner suggests implementing additional functional language that will clearly expounds steps to execute the claimed invention for generating 3D models.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of generating 3D models, without significantly more.
After Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis, the examiner conclude that,
Step 1:
The claimed invention is a process which falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). The claim(s) goes on to recite(s) the following:
Generating 3D models
After Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis, the examiner conclude that,
Step 2A Prong One:
The idea of generating 3D models is an idea having no particular concrete or tangible form. This concept fall within one of the three grouping mention in the 2019 PEG guidance. This is directed to a mental process.
The limitation of generating 3D models, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting “neural networks” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A Prong One: Yes)
After Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis, the examiner conclude that,
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites one additional elements, such as generating 3D models based on using neural networks. The “neural networks” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer performing a generic computer function based on generating a model) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. (Step 2A Prong Two: No)
After Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) analysis, the examiner conclude that,
Step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, taken individually and as a combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. When examining the limitations, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. (Step 2B: No) Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are rejected as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 7-9, 14-16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gausebeck, US 11094137.
Claim 1:
Gausebeck discloses a processor (See Gausebeck Column 13, Lines 38-40), comprising:
one or more circuits to cause one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) using one or more textual descriptions (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-151) generate one or more three-dimensional (3D) models (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-152) of one or more first objects based, at least in part, on two or more images of one or more second objects (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55) from two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45).
Claim 2:
Gausebeck discloses wherein the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) are to generate the one or more 3D models based (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15), at least in part, on the two or more images (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55) as a result of being trained based (See Gausebeck Column 4, Lines 35-50), at least in part, on the two or more images (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55) of the one or more second objects from the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45).
Claim 7:
Gausebeck discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to further cause the one or more 3D models to be refined based (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15), at least in part, on the one or more textual descriptions (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15) and the two or more images of the one or more second objects (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55).
Claims 8-9:
Claims 8-9 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 2.
Claim 14:
Gausebeck discloses wherein the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) are captured by one or more cameras positioned in locations that are equally spaced apart (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 55-65).
Claims 15-16:
Claims 15-16 are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 2.
Claim 20:
Gausebeck discloses wherein the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) are captured by four or more cameras that are equally spaced apart (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 55-653).
Claim 21:
Gausebeck discloses wherein one or more parameters of the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) is updated based on aligning at least one 3D model of the one or more 3D models with the two or more images (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gausebeck, US 11094137 in view of Cowan, US 11610284.
Claim 3:
Gausebeck failed to discloses loss measurements. However, Cowan discloses this feature in Column, Lines 28-65. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gausebeck by the teachings of Cowan to enable improved management of neural networks by incorporating generated loss measurements data more effectively (See Cowan Abstract). In addition, the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Gausebeck and Cowan discloses the following:
wherein the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) are trained based, at least in part, on one or more loss measurements (See Cowan Column, Lines 28-65) corresponding to a comparison of a 3D model of the one or more second objects (See Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15) from the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) with the two or more images of the one more second objects (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55).
Claims 10 and 17:
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected on the same basis as claim 3.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gausebeck, US 11094137 in view of Cowan, US 11610284 and in further view of Kharbanda, US 12266065.
Claim 4:
The combination of Gausebeck and Cowan failed to discloses a collage of images. However, Kharbanda discloses this feature in Column 24, Lines 15-25 and Lines 40-55. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gausebeck and Cowan by the teachings of Kharbanda to enable improved management of neural networks by improving generated data by incorporating a collage of images, more effectively (See Kharbanda Abstract). In addition, the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Gausebeck, Cowan and Kharbanda discloses the following:
wherein the two or more images (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55) of the one or more second objects from the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) are combined into a collage of images (See Kharbanda Column 24, Lines 15-25 and Lines 40-55) that are used to train the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24).
Claim 5:
The combination of Gausebeck and Cowan failed to discloses diffusion models. However, Kharbanda discloses this feature in Column 35, Lines 50-67. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gausebeck and Cowan by the teachings of Kharbanda to enable improved management of neural networks by improving generated data by incorporating modeling, more effectively (See Kharbanda Abstract). In addition, the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Gausebeck, Cowan and Kharbanda discloses the following:
wherein the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) comprise one or more diffusion models (See Kharbanda Column 35, Lines 50-67).
Claim 6:
The combination of Gausebeck, Cowan and Kharbanda discloses wherein the two or more images of the one or more second objects (See Gausebeck Column 7, Lines 9-55) from the two or more viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) are in a collage of images (See Kharbanda Column 24, Lines 15-25 and Lines 40-55) used to fine-tune a two-dimensional (2D) diffusion model (See Kharbanda Column 35, Lines 50-67).
Claims 11-12:
Claims 11-12 are rejected on the same basis as claims 4-5.
Claim 13:
The combination of Gausebeck, Cowan and Kharbanda discloses wherein the one or more processors (See Gausebeck Column 13, Lines 38-40) randomly sample one or more camera viewpoints (See Gausebeck Column 11, Lines 35-45) with fixed relative angle offsets to render images based on a three-dimensional (3D) Computer-Aided Design (CAD) model (See Gausebeck Column 66, Lines 4-10) to generate an image collage (See Kharbanda Column 24, Lines 15-25 and Lines 40-55) to train the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24).
Claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as claim 4.
Claim 19:
The combination of Gausebeck and Cowan failed to disclose a text-to-image diffusion model. However, Kharbanda discloses this feature in Column 35, Lines 50-67. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Gausebeck and Cowan by the teachings of Kharbanda to enable improved management of neural networks by improving generated data by incorporating modeling, more effectively (See Kharbanda Abstract). In addition, the references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor. This close relation between both of the references highly suggests an expectation of success.
As modified:
The combination of Gausebeck, Cowan and Kharbanda discloses the following:
wherein the one or more neural networks (See Gausebeck Column 5, Lines 7-24) comprise a text-to-image diffusion model (See Kharbanda Column 35, Lines 50-67).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20240386685 relates to relate generally to natural language processing and machine learning systems, and more specifically to systems and methods for reconstructing a three-dimensional (3D) object from a two-dimensional (2D) image.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 March 5, 2026
1 Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15 recites “a textual data”.
2 Gausebeck Column 19, Lines 5-15 recites “3D floorplan model”.
3 In view of the pending 35 USC 112 rejection, the examiner asserts Gausebeck’s teachings of “using one or more cameras (or one or more camera lenses) provided on the user device 130 or a separate camera, a user can control capturing 2D images of an environment at various positions and/or orientations relative to the environment” in Column 19, Lines 55-65 discloses the Applicant’s claim language.