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 .
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 9, 14-16, 28 and 29 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.
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 1-7, 10-13, 17-27 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, based upon consideration of all the relevant factors, because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 30, Applicant does not include any language in the specification providing any further guidance or definition to the term “computer-readable medium.” Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable medium. A signal per se is non-statutory subject matter as it is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 101. As a result, claim 30 covers both statutory and non-statutory subject matter and fails to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is reproduced below with bracketed paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
1. An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising:
[(A)] a memory; and
[(B)] a processor coupled to the memory and, based on information stored in the memory, the processor is configured to:
[(C)] compute a curvature of content in a block volume that represents a three-dimensional (3D) scene, wherein the block volume includes a set of voxels;
[(D)] select a number of the set of voxels in the block volume based on the computed curvature of the content; and
[(E)] output an indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume.
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the office is guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, the Office first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the user of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”)
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. At 182 n. 7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitation (C) recites, compute a curvature of content in a block volume that represents a three-dimensional (3D) scene, wherein the block volume includes a set of voxels. The limitation amounts to nothing more than a mathematical concept for computing a mathematical curve based on geometric data in the form of cubes or voxels. In other words, the claim merely recites the system calculates a curve based on data points mathematical values such as cartesian coordinates. As such, the limitation recites a judicial exception to patent eligible subject matter by reciting a mathematical concept.
Limitation (D) recites, select a number of the set of voxels in the block volume based on the computed curvature of the content. The limitation amounts to reading on any manner of selecting a number of data based on another computed data value. Merely selecting a value for a number of data elements based on some other value, without more, amounts to either a mathematical correlation of data, or abstract mathematical concept, or even a mental process of a concept performed in a human mind dealing with observing a curve, evaluating how many blocks may fit on the curve and forming a judgement or opinion of a number to be used. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract concept.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Limitation (E) recites, output an indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume, as in any indication what-so-ever. So merely presenting a number from the previous step is read on by the claim limitation. The limitation is not tied to any particular technological improvement or technical field such as computer graphics, such as rendering the number of voxels to generate a 3D computer graphic model. Instead, just an output of an indication occurs, or merely a limitation directed to displaying gathered data as extra-solution activity. An example of post-solution activity provided by the courts is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ 193, 196 (1978). A claim to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis has been found to not be enough - see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); also TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In the present application, there claim limitation merely takes the previously obtained data to display, without more and is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding limitations (A) and (B), the recited memory and processor are merely recited at a high level of generality as to merely recite generic computer components as a tool to merely automate the otherwise abstract and extra-solution activities. As such, the limitations do not impose any meaningful limitations on the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Merely implementing the steps on a computer, as recited in the amended claims, does not provide any particular technological advance to the operation of the computer or to a particular field of technology, other than the recited abstract ideas themselves. Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Claim 1 at most merely recites automating the otherwise generic steps on a generic computer, without more, by tying the otherwise abstract concepts to generic computer components recited in limitations (A) and (B). Merely implementing the steps on a computer, as recited in the amended claims, does not provide any particular technological advance to the operation of the computer or to a particular field of technology, other than the recited abstract ideas themselves. As such, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
As such, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 21, the claim is merely a recitation of a method that is substantially the same as recited as performed by the apparatus of claim 1, without adding any additional limitations that changes the 101 analysis for claim 1 set forth above. Accordingly, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reason as set forth above.
Regarding claim 30, the claim is merely a computer-readable medium as generic computer components that merely recite substantially the same operations as recited as performed by the apparatus of claim 1, without adding any additional limitations that changes the 101 analysis for claim 1 set forth above. Accordingly, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reason as set forth above. Note rejection is in addition to the signals per se rejection of the claim set forth above, but also holds if the medium were to include a non-transitory medium.
Regarding claim 2, the claim at most merely categorizes data for the sake of categorizing, which at most is merely an additional abstract concept such as a mathematical concept in the form of determining an object fits a geometric shape or formulation, or alternatively is merely a mental process of looking at and categorizing the data. Accordingly, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim at most merely associates a mathematical formula to data, which at most is merely an additional abstract concept such as a mathematical concept. Accordingly, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, the claim merely adds additional calculation values to compute curvature, which is analogous to merely adding mathematical variables to an equation. Accordingly, the claim merely recites additional mathematical concepts that do not further tie the invention to any particular technological improvement. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 5, the claim merely adds additional calculation values to compute curvature, which is analogous to merely adding mathematical variables to an equation. Accordingly, the claim merely recites additional mathematical concepts that do not further tie the invention to any particular technological improvement. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 6, the claim merely adds additional calculation values to compute curvature, which is analogous to merely adding mathematical variables to an equation. Accordingly, the claim merely recites additional mathematical concepts that do not further tie the invention to any particular technological improvement. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, the claim merely specifies a value as an output, which is either merely post-solution activity, or at most merely a mathematical concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Note claims 8 and 9 actual deal with up-sampling and down sampling, which is a particular technology in the realm of computer graphics and therefore recites eligible subject matter, particular in view of specification disclosing the advantage of the technology (see e.g. ¶¶26-27 of Spec. filed 9/12/2023) when actually tying the claim to the use within the technology as recited by claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 10, the claim merely specifies a value as an output, which is either merely post-solution activity, or at most merely a mathematical concept of a distribution of values in a mathematical dataset. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 11, the claim merely specifies a value as an output, which is either merely post-solution activity, or at most merely a mathematical concept of a distribution of values in a mathematical dataset. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 12, the claim merely recites additional mathematical calculations in the form of a normal value and histogram, which are merely additional mathematical concepts and not tied to an improvement to any particular technology. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 13, the claim merely recites a lookup of a value based on a value, which at most is merely an abstract concept of organizing human activity, analogous to a card catalog. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Note claims 14-16 recite a particular use of the processed computer graphic data and is therefore patent eligible, particular in view of specification disclosing the advantage of the technology (see e.g. ¶¶26-27 of Spec. filed 9/12/2023) when actually tying the claim to the use within the technology as recited by claims 8 and 9.
Regarding claim 17, the claim merely recites mathematic concept of shape association to data without more, which is a principle of mathematics itself, i.e. a plane is defined by at least one straight line. The limitation is at most merely an additional recitation of a mathematic concept. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 18, the claim merely recites that allocated memory is based on a size of data, which is a fundamental principle of how memory works, or at most post-solution activity of storing data, which does not add significantly more to the abstract concept itself. Instead, the claim merely recites how a generic computer element functions and is therefore not enough to make the claim eligible. As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 19, the claim merely recites post-solution activity of storing/transmitting data. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 20, the claim merely recites how data is obtained to perform a computation, i.e. receiving a value/indication of a block volume from a transceiver or antenna. There is nothing particular to the use of the transceiver or antenna other than the customary and ordinary use. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such, the claim is directed to ineligible subject matter for the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claims 22-27, the claims are merely a recitation of a methods that are substantially the same those performed by the apparatus of claims 2-7 respectively, without adding any additional limitations that changes the 101 analyses for claims 2-7 set forth above. Accordingly, claims 22-27 are rejected for substantially the same reason as set forth above for claims 2-7.
Note claims 28 and 29 recite a particular use of the processed computer graphic data and is therefore patent eligible, particular in view of specification disclosing the advantage of the technology (see e.g. ¶¶26-27 of Spec. filed 9/12/2023) when actually tying the claim to the use within the technology as recited by claims 8 and 9.
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) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nijlunsing (US 2012/0169735 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nijlunsing discloses:
A method of graphics processing comprising: computing a curvature of content in a block volume that represents a three-dimensional (3D) scene, wherein the block volume includes a set of voxels; (Nijlunsing, ¶59: After having determined the path of the spatial coordinates of the line through the 3D image data, a relatively simple algorithm may be used to determine values of curvature along the line. A high curvature value at a point along the line indicates a higher likelihood of the reformat plane comprising at that point voxels already comprised in another part of the plane.)_
Selecting a number of the set of voxels in the block volume based on the computed curvature of the content (Nijlunsing, ¶57: the curved planar reformatter may be configured to determine voxels comprised in the reformation plane at a plurality of positions along the line, and to determine the likelihood, using the number of positions where the one or more voxels are comprised in the reformation plane, where “For example, the number of times a voxel may be comprised in the reformat plane may be set to 1. All voxels with likelihood values larger than 1 will be distinguished when the CPR view is displayed to the use”; ¶59: A high curvature value at a point along the line indicates a higher likelihood of the reformat plane comprising at that point voxels already comprised in another part of the plane); and
Outputting an indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume. (Nijlunsing, ¶81: displaying 580 a representation of the anatomical structure in the reformation plane, and distinguishing the one or more voxels if the likelihood deviates from a predetermined value or range of values)
Regarding claim 22, Nijlunsing further discloses:
Wherein the computed curvature of the content is indicative of a type of the content in the block volume (Nijlunsing, ¶¶19-20: invention related to distinguishing artifacts and actual anatomical features, and assisting in detecting ambiguities; ¶62: curvature models for anatomical structures used for determination)
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) 1-4, 17, 23-24 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Nijlunsing (US 2012/0169735 A1) in view of
Chen (US 2022/0375164 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nijlunsing discloses:
An apparatus for graphics processing, (Nijlunsing, Fig. 1 and ¶¶46-50) comprising:
Compute a curvature of content in a block volume that represents a three-dimensional (3D) scene, wherein the block volume includes a set of voxels; (Nijlunsing, ¶59: After having determined the path of the spatial coordinates of the line through the 3D image data, a relatively simple algorithm may be used to determine values of curvature along the line. A high curvature value at a point along the line indicates a higher likelihood of the reformat plane comprising at that point voxels already comprised in another part of the plane.)_
Select a number of the set of voxels in the block volume based on the computed curvature of the content (Nijlunsing, ¶57: the curved planar reformatter may be configured to determine voxels comprised in the reformation plane at a plurality of positions along the line, and to determine the likelihood, using the number of positions where the one or more voxels are comprised in the reformation plane, where “For example, the number of times a voxel may be comprised in the reformat plane may be set to 1. All voxels with likelihood values larger than 1 will be distinguished when the CPR view is displayed to the use”; ¶59: A high curvature value at a point along the line indicates a higher likelihood of the reformat plane comprising at that point voxels already comprised in another part of the plane); and
Output an indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume. (Nijlunsing, ¶81: displaying 580 a representation of the anatomical structure in the reformation plane, and distinguishing the one or more voxels if the likelihood deviates from a predetermined value or range of values)
Nijlungsing fails to teach the use of the computer components as claimed.
Chen discloses:
A memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and, based on information stored in the memory, the processor is configured to: perform graphics processing. (Chen, Fig. 6 and ¶¶71-72: memory, including computer readable medium; ¶73: program stored in memory, including programs configured to execute functions; ¶75: processor executes functional applications and data processing by running programs stored in memory)
Both Nijlunsing and Chen are directed to 3D reconstruction of computer graphic data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method of computer graphic processing of Nijlunsing, by using the common computer architecture for graphical processing as provided by Chen, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved implementation by utilizing common generic computer architecture for easier and cheaper implementation of graphic processing.
Regarding claim 30, the limitations of claim 1 include substantially the same computer elements and operations as claim 30, and as such claim 30 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 2, Nijlunsing further discloses:
Wherein the computed curvature of the content is indicative of a type of the content in the block volume (Nijlunsing, ¶¶19-20: invention related to distinguishing artifacts and actual anatomical features, and assisting in detecting ambiguities; ¶62: curvature models for anatomical structures used for determination)
Regarding claim 3, Nijlungsing modified by Chen further discloses:
Wherein each voxel in the set of voxels is associated with a truncated signed distance function (TSDF) value and a weight (Chen, ¶48: In some embodiments, each voxel block accordingly has a truncated signed distance function (TSDF) and a weight value. The TSDF of the voxel block is obtained by fusing the TSDF value of each voxel in the voxel block with the weight value.)
Both Nijlunsing and Chen are directed to 3D reconstruction of voxel computer graphic data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method of computer graphic processing of voxel data of Nijlunsing, by including additional voxel information for determining proper reconstruction as provided by Chen, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved 3D reconstruction by including additional data for providing improved placement and reconstruction of the 3D data using improved positioning information.
Regarding claim 23, the limitations included from claim 21 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 21 set forth above. Further regarding claim 23, the apparatus of claim 3 performs the method of claim 23. As such, claim 23 is further rejected based on the same rationale as claim 3 set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, Nijlunsing further discloses:
wherein to compute the curvature of the content in the block volume, the processor is configured to compute the curvature of the content in the block volume based on the integrated block volume. (Nijlunsing, ¶21: According to a further aspect of the invention, the curved planar reformatter is configured to determine the curvature of the line at a position proximate the one or more voxels, and to determine the likelihood using the curvature; ¶59: After having determined the path of the spatial coordinates of the line through the 3D image data, a relatively simple algorithm may be used to determine values of curvature along the line. A high curvature value at a point along the line indicates a higher likelihood of the reformat plane comprising at that point voxels already comprised in another part of the plane.)
Chen discloses:
Integrate the block volume based on (1) camera pose information and (2) the TSDF value and the weight associated with each voxel in the set of voxels, (Chen, ¶25: At S102, for an image to be processed in the image sequence, depth information of the image to be processed is extracted; ¶29: the monocular image collector can be configured with an inertial measurement unit (IMU) for measuring in real time inertial measurement information of the image collector, so as to obtain the inertial measurement information of the image collector in collecting the image to be processed. The inertial measurement information can include the rotation attitude information; ¶31: using positional information for reconstruction; ¶¶47-48: using positional information for voxel block and TSDF value and weight value for voxels)
Both Nijlunsing and Chen are directed to 3D reconstruction of voxel computer graphic data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method of computer graphic processing of voxel data of Nijlunsing, by including additional voxel information for determining proper reconstruction as provided by Chen, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved 3D reconstruction by including additional data for providing improved placement and reconstruction of the 3D data using improved positioning information.
Regarding claim 24, the apparatus of claim 4 performs the method of claim 24. As such, claim 24 is rejected based on the same rationale as claim 4 set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, Nijlunsing further discloses:
Wherein the curvature of the content is indicative of: a single plane, a plurality of planes, a cylinder, a sphere, or a complex shape (Nijlunsing, Figs. 3A and 3B show “complex shape”; ¶62: curvature models for anatomical structures used for determination)
Regarding claim 19, Nijlunsing further discloses:
Wherein to output the indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume, the processor is configured to: store the indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the memory; or transmit the indication of the selected number of the set of voxels in the block volume (Ninlunsing, ¶57-58 discloses determining the voxels at different positions, and discusses the retention of processed data – this indicates storage of the date in the system; ¶81 further discloses the displaying of the one or more voxels based on previously determined values or range of values for voxels, which inherently requires storage in memory of the indication of the value of the voxels for subsequent use)
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Nijlunsing (US 2012/0169735 A1) in view of
Chen (US 2022/0375164 A1), and in further view of
Aubailly et al (US 2019/0282342 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 18, Aubailly discloses:
Allocate the memory based on the selected number of the set of voxels (Aubailly, ¶67: allocating voxel’s block of memory; ¶69: Because a vast majority of the voxels in a traditional TSDF volume are never occupied, accessed, nor needed, a great deal of otherwise usable memory is wasted if the vacant voxels are allocated. The hashing approach of the present invention instead allows for only occupied voxels to be represented in memory. By limiting memory allocation to descriptive voxels, the effective resolution of the 3D volume may be greatly increased and the effective size of the voxel may be greatly reduced. In turn, this results in a much more accurate 3D reconstruction)
Nijlunsing, Chen and Aubailly are directed to 3D reconstruction of computer graphic data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method of computer graphic processing of Nijlunsing, by using the common computer architecture for graphical processing as provided by Chen, by further allowing memory allocation for used voxels as provided by Aubailly, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved implementation by allocating voxels space in memory when voxel data is used to reduce memory usage for more efficient and cheaper implementation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Nijlunsing (US 2012/0169735 A1) in view of
Chen (US 2022/0375164 A1), and in further view of
Tamir et al. (US 2021/0304495 A1)
Regarding claim 20, the limitations included from claim 1 are rejected based on the same rationale as claim 1 set forth above. Further regarding claim 20, Nijlunsing further discloses:
configured to obtain an indication of the block volume, wherein the computation of the curvature of content is based on the indication of the block volume (Ninlunsing, ¶12 and ¶16 discloses imaging data comprising anatomical structure, where a determination is made for one or more voxels in the imaging data; ¶21: the curved planar reformatter is configured to determine the curvature of the line at a position proximate the one or more voxels, and to determine the likelihood using the curvature; ¶27: receive imaging data)
Tamir discloses:
Wherein the apparatus is a wireless communication device comprising at least one of a transceiver or an antenna coupled to the processor, and wherein the processor is further configured to obtain an indication of the block volume via at least one of the transceiver or the antenna (Tamir, ¶28: receive input data as voxels, received by means of wireless data transfer over Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. – inherently requires transceiver or antenna)
Nijlunsing, Chen and Tamir are directed to 3D reconstruction of computer graphic data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable expectation of success, to modify the system and method of computer graphic processing of Nijlunsing, by using the common computer architecture for graphical processing as provided by Chen, by further allowing wireless transfer of data as provided by Tamir, using known electronic interfacing and programming techniques. The modification results in an improved implementation by utilizing common generic computer architecture for easier and cheaper implementation of graphic processing, including allowing for distribution of computer parts to allow for mobility of users, convenience and ease of installation to avoid wiring, cost-effectiveness, and scalability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miao, R. Pajarola, and J. Feng, “Curvature-aware adaptive re-sampling for point-sampled geometry,” Comput. Aided Des., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 395–403, Jun. 2009 – Related teaches of adjusting sampling for 3D reconstruction using determination of curvature of the structure (see Abstract and Introduction discussing point-sampled geometry simplication including choosing representative points and re-sampling to approximate underlying geometry for simplified model). The difference from the current application is the reference fails to teach the selection of voxel numbering based on the determined curvature as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616