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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 8-21-2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11841924 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
The double patent rejection have been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer.
The 112 rejections have been withdrawn and the priority has been restored in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 8-21-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references or what may be missing in the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somanath 20160188995.
As to claim 1, Somanath discloses a computing system comprising (see fig. 9-11):
at least one processor [920];
at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium [924]; and
program instructions stored on the at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to (see par. 0079):
access first and second two-dimensional drawings that are associated with a construction project [Process 400 may include “obtain image data of multiple images of the same scene” 402.] [402] (see par. 0029, 0049);
perform an analysis of respective candidate pixel regions identified for the first and second two-dimensional drawings;
based on the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions identify (i) a first set of landmark pixel regions that appear in the first two-dimensional drawing and (ii) a second set of landmark pixel regions that appear in the second two-dimensional drawing [404 or 410] (see fig. 8; par. 0030, 0050);
compare the first set of landmark pixel regions with the second set of landmark pixel regions and thereby identify a set of shared landmark pixel regions that appear in both the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing [406-408] (see fig. 8; par. 0030, 0052-0054);
use the set of shared landmark pixel regions to align the first and second two-dimensional drawings [Process 400 also includes “align local patches to determine new sub-pixel-accurate points” 418] [418] (see par. 0037, 0067);
compare the aligned first and second two-dimensional drawings [426] (see par. 0074); and
based on the comparison between the aligned first and second two-dimensional drawings, determine whether the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing depict a same 3D point, error, etc. [424-434] (see par. 0031, 0073-0079, 0118). Somanath fails to recite the intended use of a portion of the construction project; however, Somanath discloses images generated in a 3D space (see par. 0002), and a construction project is a 3D; thereby bringing the same predictable result for any desired image. Additionally, the limitation describes the intended use and not the actual method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Somanath’s method can be used in any 3D space including a construction project since it is going to bring the same predicable result of allowing real-world 3D location points from multiple 2D images.
As to claim 2, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the same given portion of an object [an object such as a person or vehicle traveled] (see par. 0002). Somanath fails to disclose a portion of the construction project such as a building is to be constructed or has already been at least partially constructed; however, it is noted that the limitation is directed to an intended use of the system, rather than the system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention that Somanath would perform equally well on a building to be constructed or has already been at least partially constructed, since it would bring the same predictable results of determining real-world 3D location points from multiple 2D images.
As to claim 5, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions identified for the first and second two-dimensional drawings involves disregarding any candidate pixel regions that do not include features other than straight lines (see par. 0119).
As to claim 6, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to use the set of shared landmark pixel regions to align the first and second two-dimensional drawings comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to:
project one or both of the first two-dimensional drawing or the second two-dimensional drawing into a projection space such that one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the first two-dimensional drawing align with one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the second two-dimensional drawing [418, 422] (see par. 0026, 0067, 0069).
As to claim 7, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 6, wherein the program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to project one or both of the first two-dimensional drawing or the second two-dimensional drawing into the projection space comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: project the second two-dimensional drawing into a coordinate space of the first two-dimensional drawing [418, 422] (see par. 0026, 0067, 0069).
As to claim 10, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to compare the aligned first and second two-dimensional drawings comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: determine an extent of similarity between the aligned first and second two-dimensional drawings [424-432] (see par. 0073-0077).
Regarding claims 11-12 and 15-17, they are the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claims of system claims 1-2 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Regarding claims 18-19, they are the corresponding method claims of system claims 1-2. Therefore, claims 18-19 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somanath 20160188995 in view of Wildey 20160188995.
As to claim 8, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 7, and wherein the program instructions executable to cause the computing system to project the second two-dimensional drawing onto the coordinate space of the first two-dimensional drawing comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: map the coordinate system onto the second two-dimensional drawing [418, 422] (see par. 0026, 0067, 0069). Somanath fails to disclose wherein the coordinate space of the first two-dimensional drawing is a real coordinate system [coordinate system used to measure]. In an analogous art, Wildey discloses wherein the coordinate space of the first two-dimensional drawing is a real coordinate system [the electronic processor 12 may be configured to convert the pixel locations to a real-world coordinate system] (see par. 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add real coordinate to Somanath to enhance the precision and avoid disparities.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somanath 20160188995 in view of Zhou 20210090224.
As to claims 4 and 14, Somanath discloses the computing system of claim 1, wherein the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions identified for the first and second two dimensional drawings involves disregarding any candidate pixel regions that do not include desired pixels (see par. 0120). Somanath fails to disclose of at least two respective colors. In an analogous art, Zhou discloses wherein the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions identified for the first and second two dimensional drawings involves disregarding any candidate pixel regions that do not include at least two respective colors [desired colors used while rest may be ignored] (see par. 0087). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of selecting desired areas while ignoring not desired areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 13 and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the first and second two- dimensional drawings are included in a pool of two-dimensional drawings, and wherein the program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to, based on the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions, identify the first and second sets of landmark pixel regions comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: based on the analysis of the respective candidate pixel regions identified for the first and second two-dimensional drawings, identify, as the first set of landmark pixel regions, respective candidate pixel regions for the first two-dimensional drawing that appear in a threshold extent of the pool of two-dimensional drawings and (ii) identify, as the second set of landmark pixel regions, respective candidate pixel regions for the second two-dimensional drawing that appear in the threshold extent of the pool of two-dimensional drawings; wherein the program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to project one or both of the first two-dimensional drawing or the second two-dimensional drawing into the projection space comprise program instructions that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the computing system to: apply a first transformation to one or both of the first two-dimensional drawing or the second two-dimensional drawing; evaluate one or more first respective distances between the one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the first two-dimensional drawing and the one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the second two-dimensional drawing; apply a second transformation to one or both of the first two-dimensional drawing or the second two-dimensional drawing; evaluate one or more respective distances between the one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the first two-dimensional drawing and the one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the second two-dimensional drawing; and compare the one or more first respective distances to the one or more second respective distances to determine whether the second transformation reduced at least one distance between the shared landmark pixel regions from the first two-dimensional drawing and the one or more of the shared landmark pixel regions from the second two-dimensional drawing have not been found nor have been fairly suggested in the prior art search.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
