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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are allowed.
Claims 5-19 are currently subject to non-statutory double patenting rejections, and claims 10-19 are further rejected under 35 USC § 112(b), but the claims are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer, these claims would be allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to independent claim 1, several of the features of this claim were known in the art as evidenced by Goldschmidt et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0222446) which discloses acquiring at least a plurality of descriptors from at least one image inputted into a photograph machine learning system or results produced from searching the at least one image using the photograph machine learning system at ¶¶ [0035]-[0046]. However, Goldschmidt does not disclose, if the plurality of descriptors lacks 3D data, then scanning the particular object with a 3D scanner, transmitting the scan data to match server, and extracting geometric features. Chen (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0224858) does not disclose acquiring at least a plurality of descriptors from at least one image inputted into a photograph machine learning system or results produced from searching the at least one image using the photograph machine learning system. However, Chen discloses scanning the particular object with a 3D scanner at ¶¶ [0012]-[0013], ¶ [0018], transmitting the scan data to match server, and extracting geometric features (“3D geometric features”) at ¶ [0024] and ¶ [0027]. Chen discloses generating filters (“k-d tree-based nearest neighbor search”) by categorizing the plurality of descriptors (categorized into k-d tree partitioned space), wherein the plurality of descriptors are categorized by geometric descriptors or physical attributes and applying the filters to filter nonmatching profiles out of search results at ¶¶ [0023]-[0025] and ¶¶ [0032]-[0033]. Chen does not disclose collecting and ranking the remaining profiles that were not filtered out.
With regards to claims 2-4, these claims depend from claim 1 and therefore incorporate the features of that claim that were found allowable.
With regards to independent claims 5 and 10, these claims recite the same patentable features as were found allowable in parent application no. 17/228,655, which issued as United States Patent No. 11,934,450 on 19 March 2024. These claims are allowable for the same reasons as were provided in the parent application.
With regards to claims 6-9 and 10-19, these claims depend from claims 5 and 10, respectively, and therefore incorporate the features of those claims that were found allowable.
Other prior art considered and hereby made of record includes:
Doretto et al (US Patent No. 8,165,397) processing an image to create appearance and shape labeled images of a person or object captured within the image. The appearance and shape labeled images are unique properties of the person or object and can be used to re-identify the person or object in subsequent images. The appearance labeled image is an aggregate of pre-stored appearance labels that are assigned to image segments of the image based on calculated appearance attributes of each image segment. The shape labeled image is an aggregate of pre-stored shape labels that are assigned to image segments of the image based on calculated shape attributes of each image segment. An identifying descriptor of the person or object can be computed based on both the appearance labeled image and the shape labeled image. The descriptor can be compared with other descriptors of later captured images to re-identify a person or object.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “logic for aggregating and concatenating data”, “logic for creating profiles”, “optional means for storing the aggregated and concatenated data and profiles”, “logic for the computer to search the profiles” and “logic for filtering the profiles” in claims 10-19. Each of these “logics” correspond to steps performed by computerized system 10 in FIGS. 1A and 1B and described in the specification-as-filed at ¶¶ [0039]-[0051] and ¶ [0073].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 10-19 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.
Regarding independent claim 10, the phrase "optional" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of compact prosecution, because the limitation “optional means for storing the aggregated and concatenated data and profiles in the optional database if the optional database is present” has been interpreted as non-limiting.
With regards to claims 11-19, these claims depend from claim 10 and therefore incorporate the features of that claim that were found indefinite under 35 USC § 112(b). Furthermore, the additional limitations of these claims fail to rectify the shortcomings of the parent claim.
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.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 5
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 1
A computer implemented method for use in identifying a particular object or information about the object, by using 3D image data, the computer implemented method comprising:
A computer implemented method for use in identifying a particular object or information about the object, by using 3D image data, the computer implemented method comprising:
acquiring at least one 3D scan of an object to be identified, wherein the 3D scans comprise 2D pictures used to create a 3D scan of said object to be identified;
acquiring at least one 3D scan of an object to be identified, wherein the 3D scans comprise 2D pictures used to create a 3D scan of said object to be identified;
reconstructing, from the at least one 3D scan, a 3D reconstruction of the object or a point cloud;
reconstructing, from the at least one 3D scan, a 3D reconstruction of the object or a point cloud;
transforming the 3D reconstruction into a plurality of descriptors;
transforming the 3D reconstruction into a plurality of descriptors;
storing the plurality of descriptors in a database;
storing the plurality of descriptors in a database;
creating profiles comprising the plurality of descriptors in the database;
creating profiles comprising the plurality of descriptors in the database;
performing a candidate match search in a database based on the profiles;
performing a candidate match search in a database based on the profiles;
filtering nonmatching profiles out of the search results; and
filtering nonmatching profiles out of the search results;
generating a list of candidate matches based on matching profiles, wherein the list of candidate matches comprises zero or more matches.
generating a list of candidate matches based on matching profiles, wherein the list of candidate matches comprises zero or more matches
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 6
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 3
The method of claim 5, further comprising acquiring the plurality of descriptors comprises obtaining the plurality of descriptors from datasheets, drawings, physical object specifications, or a photograph machine learning system or database.
The method of claim 2, wherein the profiles along with images, text descriptions, pricing, and other associated identifying information are retrievable from the database.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 7
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 5
The method of claim 5, wherein the acquiring the plurality of descriptors comprises receiving a candidate match list comprising the plurality of descriptors or profiles from an external source or database.
The method of claim 1, wherein the profiles are provided by a 3rd party.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 1
The method of claim 5, further comprising generating filters from a photograph machine learning system, artificial intelligence system, computer vision system, or direct input.
using the filters to interactively filter the profiles in the database by inputting parameters for physical attributes of a particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 1
The method of claim 5, further comprising using the filters to interactively filter the profiles in the database by inputting parameters for physical attributes of a particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
using the filters to interactively filter the profiles in the database by inputting parameters for physical attributes of a particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 10
A system for use in identifying an object or information about the object, by using 3D image data and a photograph machine learning result set, the system comprising:
A system for use in identifying an object or information about the object, by using3D image data, the system comprising:
a computerized recognition system comprising a computer, a display, an optional database, at least one connection port, memory, a general network, and a remote server;
a computerized recognition system comprising a computer, a database, at least one connection port, memory, a general network, and a remote server;
logic for aggregating and concatenating data collected about the object, the data comprising geometric descriptors and parameters of the object to create a profile of the object, wherein the profile comprises a model of the object, 3D image data, associated identifying information, geometric descriptors or parameters of the object;
logic for aggregating and concatenating data collected about a particular object, the data comprising geometric descriptors and parameters, of a particular to create a profile of the particular object in a database, wherein the profile
comprises a model of the particular object, associated identifying information, geometric descriptors, or parameters for a 3D model of the particular object;
logic for creating profiles based on the aggregated and concatenated data collected about the object, wherein at least some of the aggregated and concatenated data is collected from a photograph machine learning system;
logic for creating profiles based on the aggregated and concatenated data collected about the object; a means for storing the aggregated and concatenated data and profiles in the database; and
optional means for storing the aggregated and concatenated data and profiles in the optional database if the optional database is present;
(not limiting)
logic for the computer to search the profiles, the computer being programmed to compare the aggregated and concatenated data or profiles or profiles stored in the optional database to a query profile, accessible to the computerized recognition system, comprising geometric descriptors and parameters of an object that is not readily identifiable; and
logic for the computer to search the profiles, the computer being programmed to compare the aggregated and concatenated data or profiles to query profile comprising geometric descriptors and parameters of an object that is not readily identifiable to be identified from information stored in a database within the computerized recognition system;
logic for filtering the profiles, wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises at least one of a global feature extraction, considering holistic query descriptors and providing a coarse classification that is compared to the profiles to reduce a number of part matches, or a filter wherein local descriptors extracted from the query are hashed and used to scan the optional database's feature index or profiles stored in the optional database, and collect and rank the remaining profiles that were not filtered out, wherein the remaining profiles comprise zero or more profiles that potentially identify the particular object, along with similarity scores used for ranking and presentation to identify the object that is not readily identifiable.
logic for filtering the profiles, wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises at least one of a global feature extraction, considering holistic query descriptors and providing a coarse classification that is compared to the profiles in the database to reduce a number of candidate database part matches, or a filter wherein local descriptors extracted from a query are hashed and used to scan a database's feature index and produce a final list of candidate database part matches, along with similarity scores used for ranking and presentation to identify the object that is not readily identifiable; and wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises the computer being programmed to interactively filter the profiles by inputting parameters for physical attributes of the particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
The system of claim 10, wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises the
computer being programmed to interactively filter the profiles by inputting parameters for physical attributes of the particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes
comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors and display the filters used.
(Incorporated from parent claim 10)
wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises the computer being programmed to interactively filter the profiles by inputting parameters for physical attributes of the particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
Claim 11
The system of claim 10, wherein the associated identifying information comprises part measurements, prices, dimensions, or local or global geometric surface shape descriptors, which are stored as digital profiles.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 12
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 10
The system of claim 10, wherein the filters displayed on the display are selected
by the computer system.
logic for filtering the profiles, wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises at least one of a global feature extraction, considering holistic query descriptors and providing a coarse classification that is compared to the profiles in the database to reduce a number of candidate database part matches, or a filter wherein local descriptors extracted from a query are hashed and used to scan a database's feature index and produce a final list of candidate database part matches, along with similarity scores used for ranking and presentation to identify the object that is not readily identifiable;
(Continued on next page)
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 13
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 10
The system of claim 10, wherein the filters displayed on the display are manually
modified or unselected to produce a different list of part matches.
wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises the computer being programmed to interactively filter the profiles by inputting parameters for physical attributes of the particular object not readily identifiable, wherein the physical attributes comprise textual descriptions or geometric descriptors.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 14
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 11
The system of claim 10, wherein the associated identifying information comprises
part measurements, prices, dimensions, or local or global geometric surface shape descriptors,
which are stored as digital profiles.
The system of claim 10, wherein the associated identifying information comprises part measurements, prices, dimensions, or local or global geometric surface shape descriptors, which are stored as digital profiles.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 15
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 12
The system of claim 10, wherein the optional database can be populated by scanning physical parts, by obtaining and inputting 3D computer-aided design drawings, or by collecting profile information from a third party system or a third party database.
The system of claim 10, wherein the database can be populated by scanning physical parts, or by obtaining and inputting 3D computer-aided design drawings.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 16
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 13
The system of claim 10, wherein the object is selected from a group comprising
hardware, jewelry, fashion, plumbing, grocery, automotive part, repair, or replacement good.
The system of claim 10, wherein the object is selected from a group comprising hardware, jewelry, fashion, plumbing, grocery, automotive part, repair, or replacement good.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 17
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 10
The system of claim 10, wherein the computer is programmed to supplement
profiles obtained from the photograph machine learning system results with information from the
optional database.
logic for the computer to search the profiles, the computer being programmed to compare the aggregated and concatenated data or profiles to query profile comprising geometric descriptors and parameters of an object that is not readily identifiable to be identified from information stored in a database within the computerized recognition system;
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 18
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
Claim 16
The system of claim 10, wherein the computer is programmed to supplement
profiles obtained from the photograph machine learning system results with information from
third party sources that aids in filtering the nonmatching results against the query profile.
The system of claim 15, wherein the logic for searching comprises the computer being programmed to search the database created outside the system by connecting the database to the system via a remote network or the connection port.
(Continued on next page)
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 19
U.S. Patent No. 11,934,450
The system of claim 10, further comprising:
Claim 12
The system of claim 10,
at least one 3D scan of the object;
wherein the database can be populated by scanning physical parts, or by obtaining and inputting 3D computer-aided design drawings.
a 3D reconstruction of the object or a point cloud generated from the 3D scan;
(Incorporated from parent claim 10)
the profile comprises a model of the particular object, associated identifying information, geometric descriptors, or parameters for a 3D model of the particular object;
the 3D reconstruction or point cloud being transformed into a plurality of descriptors;
the plurality of descriptors being stored in a database;
a means for storing the aggregated and concatenated data and profiles in the database;
the plurality of descriptors being employed to filter out nonmatching profiles; and
logic for filtering the profiles, wherein the logic for filtering the profiles comprises at least one of a global feature extraction, considering holistic query descriptors and providing a coarse classification that is compared to the profiles in the database to reduce a number of candidate database part matches, or a filter wherein local descriptors extracted from a query are hashed and used to scan a database's feature index and produce a final list of candidate database part matches, along with similarity scores used for ranking and presentation to identify the object that is not readily identifiable;
remaining profiles being collected and ranked that were not filtered out, wherein the remaining profiles comprise zero or more profiles that potentially identify the object.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668