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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-13 and 16-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10-12, 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,841,924. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the present application are broader and read on the above-mentioned patent. Please note, that the outcome of the 112 rejection may affect the double patenting rejection.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/237,742, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Parent claims recite the limitation “determine whether the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing depict a same given real-world environment”; the examiner was unable to find support in the specification for the limitation; specifically, to determine real-world environment. Please indicate where support can be found.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Parent claims recite the limitation “determine whether the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing depict a same given real-world environment”; the examiner was unable to find support in the specification for the limitation, specifically to determine real-world environment. Please indicate where support can be found.
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 1-20 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. Parent claims recite the limitation “determine whether the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing depict a same given real-world environment”; since the examiner was unable to find support for the limitation, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. For examination purposes real-world environment is going to be equated to a 3-D environment.
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 [Process 400 may include “obtain image data of multiple images of the same scene” 402.] [402] (see par. 0029, 0049);
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 use the words a same given real-world environment; however, as indicated in the 112 rejection, the scope of the limitation it is unclear. For examination purposes 3D location points is equivalent to a real-world environment. 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 determining whether the first two-dimensional drawing and the second two-dimensional drawing depict a same 3D point would indicate and/or equivalent to a real-world environment, since real-world environment are based 3D points; thereby, 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 real-world environment comprises a same given portion of an object [an object such as a person or vehicle traveled] (see par. 0002). Somanath fails to disclose 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 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 16-17, they are the corresponding non-transitory computer readable medium claims of system claims 1-2 and 6-7. Therefore, claims 11-12 and 16-17 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 9, 13-15 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 program instructions that are executable to cause the computing system to 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: for each respective two-dimensional drawing of a pool of two-dimensional drawings that includes the first and second two-dimensional drawings, determine a respective plurality of candidate pixel regions; and based on an analysis of the respective pluralities of candidate pixel regions determined for the pool of two-dimensional drawings, identify a given set of landmark pixel regions that appear in a threshold extent of the pool of two-dimensional drawings, wherein the given set of landmark pixel regions includes the first set of landmark pixel regions and the second subset of landmark pixel regions; 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
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
Prosecution Insights