DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: “image receiver”, “model constructor” in claims 10-21, and “angle receiver” in claims 12-14, 16.
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 4, 13, 14 and 16 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4 and 13 recite the broad recitation that the constant angle is between 2 degrees and 10 degrees, and the claim also recites the constant angle is between 3 degrees and 7 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation in the limitation " wherein every successive two of the plurality of predetermined angular positions are a constant angle apart and/or the constant angle is between 2 degrees and 10 degrees, optionally between 3 and 7 degrees, optionally 5 degrees." in “wherein the angle receiver is further configured to record the instantaneous angular position… ”. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 14 recites the limitation " the angle receiver" in “wherein the angle receiver is further configured to record the instantaneous angular position… ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the base claim 10 does not recite any “angle receiver”.
In addition Claim 16 recites the limitation " the angle receiver" in “ … receive the plurality of images and/or an angle sensor from which the angle receiver is configured to receive the instantaneous angular position of the hinged door… ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the base claim 10 does not recite any “angle receiver”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 12-16, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)/(1) as being anticipated by Abdoo et al (US 20180239319 A1).
RE claim 1, Abdoo teaches A computer-implemented modelling method (abstract, Fig 8) comprising:
receiving a plurality of images from an image sensor attached to a side of a hinged door facing an interior of a storage container, wherein each of the plurality of images is captured when the hinged door is at a corresponding one of a plurality of angular positions (θ) relative to the storage container (Figs 6-7, [0079]);
constructing a three-dimensional, 3D, model of contents within the storage container from the plurality of images and the corresponding plurality of angular positions (Figs 3-5, [0079] “the perspective of each camera of the scanning apparatus 544 will be slightly moved during each successive scan 660 of the data capturing phase 550, such that, when the data is stitched, combined, or otherwise aggregated, the resulting data represents a three-dimensional image … of the interior 572 of the refrigerating compartment 518.”, [0082]).
RE claim 3, Abdoo teaches, further comprising receiving the plurality of angular positions of the hinged door relative to the storage container from an angle sensor, wherein the plurality of angular positions comprises a plurality of predetermined angular positions, and the method further comprises instructing the image sensor to capture an image when the instantaneous angular position is substantially equal to one of the plurality of predetermined angular positions (Figs 6-7, [0077]-[0079], [0088]-[0089]).
RE claim 4, Abdoo teaches wherein every successive two of the plurality of predetermined angular positions are a constant angle apart and/or the constant angle is between 2 degrees and 10 degrees, optionally between 3 and 7 degrees, optionally 5 degrees (Figs 6-7, [0078]-[0079] wherein the predetermined rotational position of each door relative to the open and/or closed position anticipates the predefined constant angles).
RE claim 5, Abdoo teaches further comprising recording the instantaneous angular position at the time when an image is received from the image sensor as the angular position corresponding to the received image (Figs 6-7, [0079]).
RE claim 6, Abdoo teaches further comprising moving the image sensor relative to the hinged door as the angular position of the hinged door relative to the storage container changes and/or wherein the image sensor is moved relative to the hinged door in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the hinged door as the angular position of the hinged door relative to the storage container changes (Figs 6-7, [0077]- [0079]).
RE claim 7, Abdoo teaches further comprising updating the 3D model each time a plurality of new images captured at a corresponding plurality of angular positions is received as the hinged door is being moved away from and/or towards a closed position (Figs 6-7, [0061], [0077]-[0079]).
Claims 10, 12-16 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 3-7 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Abdoo teaches A modelling system configured to model contents within a storage container, the system comprising: an image receiver and a model constructor (Fig 1, [0056]).
RE claim 19, Abdoo teaches A storage container comprising a hinged door, and the system of claim 10 (Fig 1, [0056]).
RE claim 20, Abdoo teaches wherein the image sensor is moved relative to the hinged door in a direction parallel to the rotational axis of the hinged door as the angular position of the hinged door relative to the storage container changes (Figs 6-7, [0077]- [0079]).
RE claim 21, Abdoo teaches wherein the storage container is a refrigerator or a refrigerator compartment (Figs 1,4-5 [0056]).
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 2, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoo et al, and further in view of Eirinberg et al (US 20230136321 A1).
RE claim 2, Abdoo is silent RE, wherein the 3D model is constructed using photogrammetry and/or wherein the 3D model is a 3D mesh model, optionally a textured 3D mesh model.
However Eirinberg teaches in [0081], [0083], [0115], [0047] etc for displaying the 3D model utilizing typical photogrammetry and/or mesh generation with texture mapping, allowing the user to see the contents inside of the refrigerator [0042].
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 Abdoo a system and method wherein the 3D model is constructed using photogrammetry and/or wherein the 3D model is a 3D mesh model, optionally a textured 3D mesh model, as suggested by Eirinberg, in order to display the 3D model and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 11 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8-9, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdoo et al, and further in view of Navarrette et al (US 20200151943 A1).
RE claim 8, Abdoo teaches further comprising displaying an image rendered from the 3D model on an image display and/or wherein the image display is mounted on an exterior-facing side of the hinged door ([0090]).
Abdoo is silent RE: the image rendered from the 3D model. However Navarrette teaches in Fig 12, [0022], [0048] etc for displaying the 3D model wherein the image display is mounted on an exterior-facing side of the hinged door (Figs 10, 12-13, [0122]).
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 Abdoo a system and method wherein the image rendered from the 3D model, as suggested by Navarrette, in order to effectively display the 3D model and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 9, Abdoo is silent RE further comprising tracking a headpose of a viewer of the image display and/or further comprising changing the perspective from which the displayed image is rendered from the 3D model based on the headpose of the viewer.
However Navarrette teaches in Fig 12, [0045], [0048], [0117], [0129] etc for displaying the 3D model based on users perspective/head pose.
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 Abdoo a system and method of tracking a headpose of a viewer of the image display and/or further comprising changing the perspective from which the displayed image is rendered from the 3D model based on the headpose of the viewer, as suggested by Navarrette, or displaying the 3D model based on users perspective/head pose and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 17-18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 8-9 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).
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