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
1. 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 obviousness-type 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); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
2. 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer.
3. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 8, 13, 16, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11915368.
5. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced patent since the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as shown in Table 1 below.
6. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant would be prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application in the other patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
7. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Table 1
Instant Application
Patent, 11915368
Claim 1. A system for modeling a structure, comprising:
a) a processor in communication with a memory, the processor:
b) receiving a plurality of point clouds corresponding to a structure to be modeled;
c) fusing the plurality of point clouds to create a final point cloud for the structure;
d) generating a textured polygon mesh model using the final point cloud; and
e) generating computer-aided design (CAD) or wireframe three-dimensional model of the structure using the textured polygon mesh model.
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of point clouds is generated from a stereoscopic image pair.
Claim 3. The system of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of point clouds is generated from a disparity map, the disparity map generated from the stereoscopic image pair.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor executes a surface reconstruction algorithm on the final point cloud to generate a mesh model based on the final point cloud.
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor displays the final point cloud and one or more modeling tools in a graphical user interface display. Claim 5. The system of claim 4, wherein the three-dimensional model is generated using the final point cloud and the one or more modeling tools displayed in the graphical user interface display.
Claim 6. The system of claim 4, wherein the processor receives input from an operator via the one or more modeling tools, generates the three-dimensional model based on the input from the operator, and causes the three-dimensional model to be displayed.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor generates a report including measurements of a real-world structure corresponding to the three-dimensional model.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor applies a texture map to the final point cloud.
Claim 10. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor colorizes points of the final point cloud.
Claim 1. A system for modeling a structure, comprising: an aerial imagery database; and
a) a processor in communication with the aerial imagery database, the processor:
b) retrieving at least one stereoscopic image pair from the aerial imagery database;
identifying a target image from the at least one stereoscopic image pair; identifying a reference image from the at least one stereoscopic image pair; rectifying the target image and the reference image so that principal camera rays of the target image and the reference image are parallel and originate on the same plane; calculating an optimized disparity value for each pixel of the identified target image by applying a semi-global matching algorithm to minimize a cost measure at corresponding pixel locations between the target image and the reference image; generating a disparity map based on the optimized disparity values for each pixel of the identified target image;
c) generating a three dimensional point cloud based on the disparity map; and
generating a three dimensional model of the structure using the three-dimensional point cloud.
d) Claim 16. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor applies a texture map to at least one surface of the three dimensional point cloud.
e) Claim 11. The system of claim 9, wherein the processor applies texture from an image to at least one surface of the three dimensional wireframe model
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one stereoscopic image pair is identified using a geospatial region of interest.
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one stereoscopic image pair includes data relating to intrinsic and extrinsic camera parameters.
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor generates the three dimensional point cloud based on the disparity map and ray intersection between the identified target image and the identified reference image, the processor calculating a plurality of three dimensional intersections between respective rays passing through respective pixels in the identified target image and respective rays passing through respective corresponding pixels in the identified reference image.
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor generates at least one three dimensional tool for modeling a feature over the three-dimensional point cloud.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor: retrieves a second stereoscopic image pair from the aerial imagery database; identifies a second target image from the second stereoscopic image pair; identifies a second reference image from the second stereoscopic pair; calculates a disparity value for each pixel of the identified second target image; generates a second disparity map based on the respective calculated disparity values for each pixel of the identified second target image; generates a second three dimensional point cloud based on the second disparity map, the identified second target image and the identified second reference image; and generates a fused three dimensional point cloud by fusing the generated first three dimensional point cloud and the generated second three dimensional point cloud.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, wherein the system generates a first point cloud from a first pair of stereoscopic images, generates a second point cloud from a second pair of stereoscopic images, and automatically selects one of the first point cloud or the second point cloud for display to a user.
Claim 8. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor executes a surface reconstruction algorithm on the three dimensional point cloud to generate a three dimensional mesh model based on the three dimensional point cloud.
Claim 9. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor causes a graphical user interface to be displayed to an operator, the graphical user interface including the three dimensional point cloud and a user interface tool for creating a three dimensional wireframe model of a feature on top of the three-dimensional point cloud.
Claim 10. The system of claim 9, wherein the processor receives input from the operator via the user interface tool, generates the three dimensional wireframe model of the feature based on the input from the operator, and causes the three dimensional wireframe model of the feature to be displayed on top of the three dimensional point cloud.
Claim 11. The system of claim 9, wherein the processor applies texture from an image to at least one surface of the three dimensional wireframe model.
Claim 12. The system of claim 9, wherein the processor generates serializable data based on the three dimensional wireframe model of the roof.
Claim 13. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor generates a report including measurements of a real-world structure corresponding to the three-dimensional model.
Claim 14. The system of claim 13, wherein the report is in the form of a digital file.
Claim 15. The system of claim 14, wherein the report includes information relating to one or more of pricing information, materials, equipment, or supporting events corresponding to at least part of the three-dimensional model.
Claim 16. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor applies a texture map to at least one surface of the three dimensional point cloud.
Claim 17. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor colorizes points of the three dimensional point cloud.
8. a) Regarding claim 1 of the instant application, the first row of Table 1 above shows that this claim maps the claims 1, 11, and 16, from the Patent, 11915368 where the bold number sections correspond across the columns of the table to the corresponding features between the instant applications and referenced patent.
b) Regarding claims 2-10 of the instant application, the first row of Table 1 above shows that this claim maps the claims 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 8, 13, and 17, from the Patent, 11915368 where the bold number sections correspond across the columns of the table to the corresponding features between the instant applications and referenced patent
It is obvious that the above claim elements support a nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection as the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) as the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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 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.
10. 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 of this title, 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.
11. Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 11-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al., US 2017/0277980 A1, and further in view of Elahie et al., US 10860838 B1.
12. As per claim 1, Taylor discloses: A system for modeling a structure, an aerial imagery database; (Taylor, ¶38, “The system 10 can communicate through a network 18 with one or more of a variety of image providers to obtain aerial images or photographs of a building structure 20 and can store them in the aerial image database 14 in any suitable format.”) and
comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory, the processor (Taylor, [0065], “a communications bus 310, a central processing unit (CPU) (microprocessor) 312, a random access memory (RAM) 314.”):
receiving a plurality of point clouds corresponding to a structure to be modeled; (Taylor, [0077], “Once multiple image pairs have been selected, the engine applies a Levenberg-Marquadt optimization module 504 to the multiple image pairs. More specifically, at step 506, the module 504 generates point clouds for each image pair (using the process described in FIG. 13).”)
fusing the plurality of point clouds to create a final point cloud for the structure; (Taylor, ¶87, “Returning to step 612, once the set of calibrated aerial images are selected/identified, the process (concurrently) proceeds to step 626, where the stereo processing module 602 selects image pairs in any orientation, and then the image pairs are rectified in step 628. The stereo processing module 602 computes a multiscale disparity map at step 630, then computes and merges pairwise point clouds at step 632, and then generates a global point cloud at step 634.”) and
13. Taylor doesn’t expressly disclose:
generating a textured polygon mesh model using the final point cloud; and
generating computer-aided design (CAD) or wireframe three-dimensional model of the structure using the textured polygon mesh model.
14. Elahie discloses:
generating a textured polygon mesh model using the final point cloud; (Elahie, column 12, lines 16-18, “(44) To generate the three-dimensional model, the user can utilize the captured images as texture information to be wrapped around the point cloud. ”) and
generating computer-aided design (CAD) or wireframe three-dimensional model of the structure using the textured polygon mesh model. (Elahie, column 5, lines 51-62, “(18) As used herein, a three dimensional face model, also referred to as a three-dimensional facial model, and a three-dimensional model, can refer to a wire-frame mesh, or point-cloud, model of a face, with textures (e.g., blended textures) on the model representative of a face. For example, images of a person (e.g., an actor) may be obtained via a camera rig. These images can be utilized to generate a point-cloud of the person's face, in which points with location and depth information are connected via vertices. A modeler (e.g., a blend-shape artist) can modify the point-cloud, blend textures, and so on, to generate a three-dimensional face model based on the person's face.”)
15. Elahie is analogous art with respect to Taylor because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include: generating a textured polygon mesh model using the final point cloud; and generating computer-aided design (CAD) or wireframe three-dimensional model of the structure using the textured polygon mesh model, as taught by Elahie into the teaching of Taylor. The suggestion for doing so would adjust the 3D model until it conforms to the emotion required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Elahie with Taylor.
16. As per claim 2, Taylor in view of Elahie discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of point clouds is generated from a stereoscopic image pair. (Taylor, [0087],” Returning to step 612, once the set of calibrated aerial images are selected/identified, the process (concurrently) proceeds to step 626, where the stereo processing module 602 selects image pairs in any orientation, and then the image pairs are rectified in step 628. The stereo processing module 602 computes a multiscale disparity map at step 630, then computes and merges pairwise point clouds at step 632, and then generates a global point cloud at step 634.”)
17. As per claim 3, Taylor in view of Elahie discloses: The system of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of point clouds is generated from a disparity map, the disparity map generated from the stereoscopic image pair. (Taylor, [0048],” In sub-process 74, the system generates a disparity map and/or point cloud, which provides information about the elevation of the structures (e.g., objects, elements, etc.) present in the stereoscopic pair of images. To generate a disparity map and/or point cloud, in step 76, the system uses world file information to process the overlapped region between stereoscopic images. One or more image pairs can be used in this process, and the resulting disparity maps and/or point clouds can be combined to gain additional information.”)
18. As per claim 8, Taylor in view of Elahie discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor generates a report including measurements of a real-world structure corresponding to the three-dimensional model. (Taylor, ¶64, “The submission window 276 includes a comment area 282 for a user to manually write a report, a submit button 278, and a list of possible issues or submission alternatives 280 to select (e.g., accept with warning, bad images, tree was found, pool was found, unrecognized area, etc.). The system could also present the operator with questions to record any useful feedback (e.g., for quality assurance).”)
19. As per claim 9, Taylor in view of Elahie discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor applies a texture map to the final point cloud. (Elahie, column 12, lines 16-18, “(44) To generate the three-dimensional model, the user can utilize the captured images as texture information to be wrapped around the point cloud. ”)
20. Claims 11-13, and 18 are similar in scope respectively to claims 1-3, and 8, are thus rejected under the same rationale.
21. Claims 4-7, 10 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al., US 2017/0277980 A1, and in view of Elahie et al., US 10860838 B1 and further in view of Verma et al., US 2006/0061566 A1.
22. As per claim 4, Taylor in view of Elahie discloses: The system of claim 1.
23. Taylor in view of Elahie doesn’t expressly disclose: The processor displays the final point cloud and one or more modeling tools in a graphical user interface display.
24. Verma discloses: The processor displays the final point cloud and one or more modeling tools in a graphical user interface display. (Verma, ¶27, “The tree -dimensional geometry processing module 902 that creates a geometric model directly from the point cloud….The interactive model editing module 906 allows a user to edit the model to fit the point cloud data and/or remove any anomalous attributes of the model. In one embodiment, the module 906 overlays the model as a translucent image upon the original point cloud and a user may alter the model to better fit the point cloud. The output of the module 906 is an untextured geometric model of the scene.”).
25. Verma is analogous art with respect to Taylor in view of Elahie because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image processing. At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include: The processor displays the final point cloud and one or more modeling tools in a graphical user interface display, as taught by Verma into the teaching of Taylor in view of Elahie. The suggestion for doing so would achieve a realistic model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Verma with Taylor in view of Elahie.
26. As per claim 5, Taylor in view of Elahie, and in view of Verma discloses: The system of claim 4, wherein the three-dimensional model is generated using the final point cloud and the one or more modeling tools displayed in the graphical user interface display. (Verma, ¶27, “The tree -dimensional geometry processing module 902 that creates a geometric model directly from the point cloud…The interactive model editing module 906 allows a user to edit the model to fit the point cloud data and/or remove any anomalous attributes of the model. In one embodiment, the module 906 overlays the model as a translucent image upon the original point cloud and a user may alter the model to better fit the point cloud. The output of the module 906 is an untextured geometric model of the scene.”).
27. As per claim 6, Taylor in view of Elahie, and in view of Verma discloses: The system of claim 4, wherein the processor receives input from an operator via the one or more modeling tools, generates the three-dimensional model based on the input from the operator, and causes the three-dimensional model to be displayed. (Verma, ¶64, “As discussed above with reference to FIG. 2, adding the ground, building sides and texture, completes the model. More specifically, once the roofs are defined, the ground surface is added to the model as a triangulated mesh that matches the ground points of the LIDAR data. The ground points, as identified from the LIDAR data earlier, are smoothened using a morphological operator.”…” Photographic or synthetic texture can be added to the roof structures, building sides and ground to create a realistic view of the model. Various well-known texturing techniques can be used.”)
28. As per claim 7, Taylor in view of Elahie, and in view of Verma discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor executes a surface reconstruction algorithm on the final point cloud to generate a mesh model based on the final point cloud. (Verma, ¶64, “As discussed above with reference to FIG. 2, adding the ground, building sides and texture, completes the model. More specifically, once the roofs are defined, the ground surface is added to the model as a triangulated mesh that matches the ground points of the LIDAR data. The ground points, as identified from the LIDAR data earlier, are smoothened using a morphological operator.”)
29. As per claim 10, Taylor in view of Elahie, and in view of Verma discloses: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor colorizes points of the final point cloud. (Verma, ¶75, “Some LIDAR scanners also a record intensity or color of scanned surfaces. Such intensity/color can be used as texture within the model. Because the intensity/color values are aligned with three-dimensional information within the LIDAR point cloud, no calibration or registration of this intensity/color information to the model is necessary. These values can be directly used to texture the models.”)
30. Claims 14-17, 19, and 20 are similar in scope respectively to claims 4-7, 9 and 10, are thus rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
31. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 filed 02/23/2026 have been considered but are moot because Applicant submitted new amended claims. Accordingly, new grounds of rejection are set forth above. The new grounds of rejection conclusion have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
32. Applicants amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5254. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
Prosecution Insights