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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 2, 6, 8 – 12, 16, and 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng (US PgPub No. 2018/0032060).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a method for three-dimensional reconstruction (3DR) of a scene (figure 4), the method comprising: determining a fixed block configuration based on a storage size limitation (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel); selecting a plurality of blocks of the scene based on the fixed block configuration (figure 3 items 330 – 332); and converting indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the fixed block configuration to indices of a plurality of blocks associated with a particular block configuration corresponding to a particular 3DR application, wherein the particular block configuration is different from the fixed block configuration (figure 5; a 3-D object 550 and a grid of voxels 552).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein determining the fixed block configuration is further based on a lookup table (LUT) mapping a plurality of block configurations to associated respective required cache sizes, wherein the plurality of block configurations comprises the fixed block configuration (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel; also figures 5 - 6).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches determining a scaling ratio and offsets between the fixed block configuration and the particular block configuration (paragraph 0031 – 0032, 0040, and 0057 – 0064, 0099 – 0100, and 0108; scaling based on comparison of voxels).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein each block of the plurality of blocks is a voxel block (abstract and figures 5 – 6; voxels).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein the storage size limitation is a cache size limitation (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches processing the plurality of blocks associated with the particular block configuration based on the particular 3DR application (paragraphs 0012, 0026 – 0029; programming for the system).
Regarding claim 11, Zeng teaches an apparatus for three-dimensional reconstruction (3DR) of a scene (figure 4), the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (paragraphs 0012, 0024, 00741; memory); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (paragraphs 0012, 0026 – 0029) : determine a fixed block configuration based on a storage size limitation (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel); select a plurality of blocks of the scene based on the fixed block configuration (figure 3 items 330 – 332); and convert indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the fixed block configuration to indices of a plurality of blocks associated with a particular block configuration corresponding to a particular 3DR application, wherein the particular block configuration is different from the fixed block configuration (figure 5; a 3-D object 550 and a grid of voxels 552).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the fixed block configuration further based on a lookup table (LUT) mapping a plurality of block configurations to associated respective required cache sizes, wherein the plurality of block configurations comprises the fixed block configuration (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel; also figures 5 - 6).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine a scaling ratio and offsets between the fixed block configuration and the particular block configuration (paragraph 0031 – 0032, 0040, and 0057 – 0064, 0099 – 0100, and 0108; scaling based on comparison of voxels).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein each block of the plurality of blocks is a voxel block (abstract and figures 5 – 6; voxels).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein the storage size limitation is a cache size limitation (paragraph 0054; Decoding shape features from a particular node using associated data types can provide the ability to reconstruct shape features reaching resolution small than the size of voxel).
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, Zeng teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Zeng teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to process the plurality of blocks associated with the particular block configuration based on the particular 3DR application (paragraphs 0012, 0026 – 0029; programming for the system).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5, 7, 13 – 15, and 17 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:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 3: “wherein selecting the plurality of blocks comprises: obtaining a plurality of depth pixels associated with a plurality of depth maps of the scene, wherein each depth map of the plurality of depth maps is associated with a respective pose of an image sensor, and wherein each depth pixel of the plurality of depth pixels is associated with a depth value; converting depth values of the plurality of depth pixels to a plurality of global three-dimensional (3D) points in a global coordinate system; determining indices of blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points; generating a listing of blocks comprising the indices of the blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points and indices of neighboring blocks adjacent to the blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points; and selecting the plurality of blocks of the scene from the listing of blocks based on a number of depth pixels of the plurality of depth pixels being located within the plurality of blocks” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Regarding claims 4 - 5, these claims are also objected to as being dependent from objected claim 3.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 7: “wherein converting the indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the fixed block configuration to the indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the particular block configuration is based on the scaling ratio and the offsets between the fixed block configuration and the particular block configuration” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 13: “wherein, to select the plurality of blocks, the at least one processor is configured to: obtain a plurality of depth pixels associated with a plurality of depth maps of the scene, wherein each depth map of the plurality of depth maps is associated with a respective pose of an image sensor, and wherein each depth pixel of the plurality of depth pixels is associated with a depth value; convert depth values of the plurality of depth pixels to a plurality of global three-dimensional (3D) points in a global coordinate system; determine indices of blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points; generate a listing of blocks comprising the indices of the blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points and indices of neighboring blocks adjacent to the blocks associated with the plurality of global 3D points; and select the plurality of blocks of the scene from the listing of blocks based on a number of depth pixels of the plurality of depth pixels being located within the plurality of blocks” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Regarding claims 14 - 15, these claims are also objected to as being dependent from objected claim 13.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 17: “wherein the at least one processor is configured to convert the indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the fixed block configuration to the indices of the plurality of blocks associated with the particular block configuration based on the scaling ratio and the offsets between the fixed block configuration and the particular block configuration” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thakkar (US patent No. 9396514) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
Ito (US PgPub No. 20170212661) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values
Ha (US PgPub No. 20140232820) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
Lee (US PgPub No. 20140098085) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
JIANG (US PgPub No. 20130027396) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
Repenning (US PgPub No. 20110285707) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
Wang (US PgPub No. 20110188780) teaches imaging and tacking pixel values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
05/22/2026
Prosecution Insights