DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to the communication filed on 02/17/2026.
Initially Applicant didn’t amend the claims 18-19 as suggested in the previous office action, so the previous 112 b rejection is retained.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 9 that the applied references fail to disclose the limitations of “identifying a first set of the points of the 3D representation satisfying a replacement criterion, wherein the first set of the points is identified based on identifying a flat surface having a size greater than a size threshold and determining that each point of the first set of the points represents a portion of the flat surface based on determining a respective distance between each point of the first set of points and the flat surface,” as a conclusory statement without any evidence.
The Examiner contests that at least Kim teaches the feature of “identifying a first set of the points of the 3D representation satisfying a replacement criterion; and replacing the first set of the points in the 3D representation with a planar element depicting a surface of the physical environment wherein the first set of the points is identified based on identifying a flat surface having a size greater than a size threshold” in Figs 4-6, abstract, page 289 col 2-page 290 col 1, wherein portions of the input point cloud satisfying size threshold and/or angular similarity criteria substituted as planar mesh. While Kim is silent RE: the planar element having an appearance provided by one or more images, Bell teaches in Figs 7-8, abstract, [0115], [0127]-[0131] to facilitate transitioning between 2D models or images and 3D models allowing multiple viewing options. This is readily available or can equally applied in Kim to effectively utilize the texture images in fig 4 for color/texture mapping the selected planar areas.
Applicant's remaining arguments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections with respect to the amended limitations of “determining that each point of the first set of the points represents a portion of the flat surface based on determining a respective distance between each point of the first set of points and the flat surface;” in the claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection to teach the amended limitations necessitated by the amendment.
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 18-19 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. The claims 18-19 recite “The first device of claim 1”, however claim 1 is a method claim. In addition claims 8-9, depending on claim 1 recite the same subject matter of the claims. This renders the scope of the claims 18-19 ambiguous and/or duplicate. For examination purpose, the examiner interprets the claims as “The first device of claim 16”, consistent with the previous claims and corresponding device claims of the claims 8-9.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the first set of the points is further identified based on determining that the flat surface exceeds a size threshold”. This is similar in scope with the limitation of the independent claim 1 and 11 “wherein the first set of the points is identified based on identifying a flat surface having a size greater than a size threshold”. Therefore the limitation does not further limit the independent claims. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (Kim, Han-Ul, Jin-Hwan Kim, and Chang-Su Kim. "Hybrid representation and rendering of indoor environments using meshes and point clouds." 2014 11th International Conference on Ubiquitous Robots and Ambient Intelligence (URAI). IEEE, 2014. Applicant cited), and in view of Bell et al (US 20190051050 A1), and further in view of Xu et al (US 20220309761 A1).
RE claim 1, Kim teaches A method comprising: at a processor of a first device:
generating a three-dimensional (3D) representation of a physical environment, the 3D representation comprising points each having a 3D location and representing a portion of the physical environment (Abstract, Figs 1-5, page 290 cols 1-2);
identifying a first set of the points of the 3D representation satisfying a replacement criterion; and replacing the first set of the points in the 3D representation with a planar element depicting a surface of the physical environment wherein the first set of the points is identified based on identifying a flat surface having a size greater than a size threshold (Figs 4-6, abstract, page 289 col 2-page 290 col 1, wherein portions of the input PC satisfying size threshold and/or angular similarity criteria substituted as planar mesh).
Kim is silent RE: the planar element having an appearance provided by one or more images.
However Bell teaches in Figs 7-8, abstract, [0115], [0127]-[0131] to facilitate transitioning between 2D models or images and 3D models allowing multiple viewing options. This is readily available or can equally applied in Kim to effectively utilize the texture images in fig 4 for color/texture mapping the selected planar areas.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kim a system and method of the planar element having an appearance provided by one or more images, as suggested by Bell, in order to effectively color/texture mapping the selected planar areas and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Kim as modified by Bell is silent RE determining that each point of the first set of the points represents a portion of the flat surface based on determining a respective distance between each point of the first set of points and the flat surface;
However Xu teaches in [0073]-[0074] as a typical RANSAC algorithm to determine a plane from the point cloud. This is readily available or can equally applied in Kim to effectively extract the planar surface from the point cloud readily using the RANSAC algorithm (Kim page 290 col 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kim as modified by Bell a system and method for determining that each point of the first set of the points represents a portion of the flat surface based on determining a respective distance between each point of the first set of points and the flat surface, as suggested by Xu, in order to effectively extract the planar surface from the point cloud and thereby ensuring system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 2, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches wherein an appearance of the planar element in the view is based on the one or more images of the surface (Bell teaches in Figs 7-8, abstract, [0039], [0051]-[0052], [0115], [0127]-[0131] etc).
Kim as modified by Bell and Xu is silent RE further comprising providing the 3D representation to a second device different than the first device, wherein the second device provides a view based on the points and the planar element.
However Bell teaches in Figs 4, 14, [0041], [0172] etc.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kim as modified by Bell and Xu a system and method for providing the 3D representation to a second device different than the first device, wherein the second device provides a view based on the points and the planar element, as suggested by Bell, in order to allow communicate and sharing the view within multiple devices and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 4, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches where the surface is a flat surface, wherein the planar element comprises a mesh defining the flat surface, wherein an appearance of the mesh is defined based on the one or more images (Kim Figs 4-6, abstract, page 289 col 2-page 290 col 1, Bell abstract, Figs 7-8, abstract, [0039], [0051]-[0052], [0115], [0127]-[0131] etc).
RE claim 5, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches wherein the planar element is defined using less data than the first set of the points (Kim page 289 col 2-page 290 col 1).
RE claim 6, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches wherein the first set of the points is identified by: determining a confidence value that each point of the first set of the points represents a portion of a flat surface; and determining that the confidence value of each point of the first set of the points exceeds a threshold (Kim Fig 2, page 290 col 1, in addition Bell [0073]-[0075]).
RE claim 7, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches wherein the first set of the points is further identified based on determining that the flat surface exceeds a size threshold (Kim page 289 col 2-page 290 col 1).
RE claim 9, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches further comprising updating an appearance of the planar element as new sensor data is obtained (Bell [0052], [0054], [0108], [0139], [0146]).
RE claim 10, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches wherein updating the appearance of the planar element is based on determining that the new sensor data satisfies an image criterion (Bell [0053]).
Claims 11-12, 14-17, 19 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1-2, 4-7, 10 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches A first device comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; and one or more processors coupled to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Kim abstract, method performed by typical computing device as Bell Fig 1, [0044]).
Claims 20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Kim as modified by Bell and Xu teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions executable via one or more processors (Kim abstract, method instructions stored in typical CRM as Bell Fig 1, [0044]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Bell and Xu, and further in view of Cui et al (US 20220036080 A1).
RE claim 3, Kim as modified by and Xu Bell is silent RE wherein the first device and the second device concurrently provide views of the physical environment during a communication session.
However Cui teaches in Figs 3-4, [0007], [0044]-[0047].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kim as modified by Bell and Xu a system and method wherein the first device and the second device concurrently provide views of the physical environment during a communication session, as suggested by Cui, in order to allow viewing concurrently with the second device and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 13 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 3 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as modified by Bell and Xu, and further in view of Kaiser et al (KAISER ET AL: "Geometric Proxies for Live RGB-D Stream Enhancement and Consolidation", ARXIV.ORG, 21 January 2020, XP081582810, Applicant cited).
RE claim 8, Kim as modified by Bell and Xu is silent RE wherein the replacing occurs in real time during a scanning process in which: sensor data is obtained over a time period; active depth sensing and imaging are used to generate the points for inclusion in the 3D representation as sensor data is received during the time period; and points are selectively replaced with one or more planar elements based on the replacement criterion during the time period.
However Kaiser teaches generating and updating through time a single set of compact local statistics parameterized over detected geometric proxies, which are fed from raw RGB-D data in abstract, Figs 1, 4, 8, page 8 col 2- page 9 col 1 etc providing an enhanced 3D model in real time. This is readily available or can be equally applied by applying the metho steps of claim 1 over a time period, as Bell readily teaches capturing/updating 3D imagery including video, streaming and live navigation interface ([0041], [0045]-[0046], [0052]), as readily recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Kim as modified by Bell and Xu a system and method wherein the replacing occurs in real time during a scanning process in which: sensor data is obtained over a time period; active depth sensing and imaging are used to generate the points for inclusion in the 3D representation as sensor data is received during the time period; and points are selectively replaced with one or more planar elements based on the replacement criterion during the time period, as set forth above applying Kaiser, in order to provide real time processing and viewing and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 18 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 8 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attached 892).
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 SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights