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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claims 11-19 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they are all method claims.
Claims 1-10 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the recitations of “camera”, “sensor”, “memory”, “processor” and “instructions” provide sufficient structure to perform all claimed limitations.
Claim 20 is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it is a manufacture claim.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The first line set forth on page 20, paragraph [0092], is illegible (i.e., blurred) and cannot be readily reproduced for publication.
On page 22, paragraphs [00103] – [00105], there are inconsistent descriptions with regard to the “weight” and “standard deviation” (i.e., underscore is used to describe weight and standard deviation in paragraph [00103] but it is not used to describe them in equations 1-3). Also, there is no description with regard to term alpha used in the equations.
On page 25, paragraph [00125], the “optimized Φ(v_i)” and “W(v_i)” ought to be changed to “optimized Φ(vi)” and “W(vi)”, respectively. Also there is no description with regard to term lambda (i.e., λ).
On page 26, paragraph [00126], line 3, the term “Ai,j” shouldn’t be superscript.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 11 as a presentative claim, the 101 analysis is presented below.
Step 1: It is noted that claim 11 recites a method which is a process. Thus, claim 11 is directed to one of statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: Limitations “obtaining color data and TSDF data about at least one voxel within a truncation distance, based on the color data of the voxel structure and the TSDF data of the voxel structure” in last three lines are interpreted as mathematical calculation (see 361 of figure 3). Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: It is noted that claim does include additional limitations “obtaining at least one piece of location information about the electronic device through at least one sensor”, “obtaining color data of a voxel structure, based on color data about an image obtained through a camera and the at least one piece of location information”, and “obtaining truncated signed distance field (TSDF) data of the voxel structure, based on depth data about the image obtained through the camera and the at least one piece of location information”. These additional limitations are nothing more than steps of gathering data which are pre-solution activities. Thus, these additional limitations do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea because they are merely directed to insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2B: It is noted that claim does include additional limitations as pointed out in Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above, taken individual and/or in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. These additional limitations are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim is not a patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites an electronic device, which is an apparatus, so claim falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that each of these claims recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claim 10. Thus, the advanced statements as applied to claim 10 above are incorporated herein. It is also noted that claim 1 recites addition elements “camera”, “sensor”, “memory” and “processor”. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a conventional computer. The claim does not point to a specific improvement in computer itself. These additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 20 recites a product so claim falls within one of the statutory categories of invention. It is noted that claim recites similar claim limitations called for in the counterpart claims 1 and 11. Thus, claim is also rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1 and 11 above.
The advanced statements as applied to claims 1 and 11 are incorporated hereinafter.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the additional limitations “obtain the color value…method” are nothing more than steps of gathering data which are pre-solution activities. Thus, these additional limitations do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea because they are merely directed to insignificant extra-solution activities. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, the additional limitations “obtain a frustum…of the camera” and “obtain a plurality…the frustum” are nothing more than steps of gathering data which are pre-solution activities. Thus, these additional limitations do not add anything significantly more to the abstract idea because they are merely directed to insignificant extra-solution activities. The additional limitations “obtaining a color value…voxel structure” are interpreted as mathematical calculation (see equations 1-3). Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claim 3 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, claim limitations “obtain the color value…electronic device” are interpreted as mathematical calculation (see equations 1-3). Thus, these limitations fall into the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract idea. Thus, claim 4 also recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 and 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 5 and 15, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations that of “identify at least one undefined voxel among a plurality of voxels included in the frustum, and obtain TSDF data about the at least one undefined voxel, based on trilinear interpolation”.
Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as well.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and thus is allowable for the same reasons as well.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations that of “obtain the color data of the voxel structure after removing a distortion of the color data about the image, based on a type of the camera and/or the at least one piece of location information, and arranging the color data from which the distortion has been removed, based on a coordinate system of a space”.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations that of “obtain the depth data of the voxel structure after removing a distortion of the depth data about the image, based on a type of the camera and/or the at least one piece of location information, and arranging the depth data from which the distortion has been removed, based on a coordinate system of a space”.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations that of “generate a three-dimensional (3D) mesh, based on a marching cubes algorithm”.
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art does not teach or suggest claim limitations that of “update the depth data about the image, based on the TSDF data about the at least one voxel within the truncation distance”.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2020/0302683 A1) teaches acquiring signed distance field information and illumination information corresponding to pixels (see paras. [0018] -[0020]) and reconstructing data for a scene (see para. [0012]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY M DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7389. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 7:00AM to 3:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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.
DMD
1/2026
/DUY M DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662