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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: a control and evaluation computing unit and a data connection in claim 15.
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.
A review of the US 20240371102 A1 of the instant application shows “[0034] The present disclosure also relates to a computer program product comprising program code which is stored on a machine-readable medium or being embodied by an electromagnetic wave comprising a program code segment and having computer-executable instructions for performing the claimed method, particularly when executed on a control and evaluation computing unit of a system as claimed”. Therefore, the corresponding physical structure for the control and evaluation computing unit and the data connection is a computer.
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 § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887).
Regarding claim 1, Bhushan discloses A scanning method for 3D-laser scanning of a real-world environment comprising: providing a virtual reality scene to a first remote operator emulating at least a first part of the environment (Bhushan, “(347) Depth sensor 1924 includes one or more sensors that acquire sensor data relating to the depth of objects within an environment. depth sensor 1924 generates depth sensor data using on or more depth imaging techniques, such as triangulation, structured light imaging, time-of-flight imaging, stereo imaging, laser scan, and so forth. host device 1804 may transmit the 3D depth data to remote device(s) 1810 for further processing. (348) Imaging sensor 1926 includes one or more optical sensors, such as RGB cameras, infrared cameras, and/or camera arrays, which includes two or more of such cameras. Other imaging sensors may include imagers and/or lasers sensors”),
automatically determining a first virtual position of the first operator within the environment (Bhushan, “(410) In some embodiments, remote device 1810-1 may determine an anchor position for the scene and may render portions of the scene relative to the anchor position. In such instances, XR application 1814 included in remote device 1810-1 may determine the position of remote device 1810-1 relative to the anchor position in order to determine the position of remote device 1810-1 relative to portions of the scene”),
automatically defining a scan region based on said first virtual position (Bhushan, “(412) In various embodiments, remote device 1810-1 may change position within the real-world location of remote device 1810-1. In such instances, XR application 1814 may update remote XR environment portion 2232 to reflect the position change of remote device 1810-1.”),
automatically transmitting instructions to a, in particular mobile, first scanner deployed in the environment to scan said scan region (Bhushan, “(362) Upon generating the scene, XR application 1814 may respond to navigation inputs (e.g., physically moving remote device 1810-1, applying navigation inputs) by changing the viewing position of remote device 1810-1 within the remote XR environment 1930 and presenting a different portion of the scene.”),
live-streaming scan data, in particular 3D-point cloud data, of the scan region, generated by the first scanner, to the operator (Bhushan, “(350) XR application 1814 may receive the depth sensor data and image sensor data and generate respective 3D depth data and 2D surface data. In such instances, XR application 1814 may combine correlated 3D depth data and 2D surface data to generate an XR stream and transmit the XR stream to one or more recipients (e.g., remote devices 1810, remote storage 1904, etc.). (486) For example, the depth sensor may include a LIDAR sensor that generates a 3D point cloud representing objects or surfaces in the physical space”) and
displaying in real-time a virtual reality 3D-view of at least part of the environment comprising the scanned scan region to the first operator based on the streamed scan data (Bhushan, “(316) The remote device receives the XR stream and renders, based on the correlated 2D surface data and 3D depth data encapsulated in the XR stream, a portion of the real-world environment for presentation at the location of the remote device”),
automatically dynamically updating said 3D-view in real-time based on generated and live-streamed additional scan data of the environment, whereby the additional scan data expands and/or refines the scanned scan region according to: a further virtual position of the first operator, in particular with a continuous automatic tracking of the first operator’s position and according continuous automatic expanding and/or refining of the scan region, and/or an input, in particular a manual definition of a region to be additionally scanned, by the first operator using the displayed 3D-view within the virtual reality scene (Bhushan, “(324) data intake and query system 108 may, based on the unique identifier, output to one or more devices 1804, 1810 content that includes real-time data associated with a particular asset. (353) In some embodiments, XR application 1814 may generate the XR stream for a real-time remote collaboration session. (349) host device 1804 may provide updates to the imaging data (e.g., depth sensor data and image sensor data) associated with real-world environments. For example, host device 1804 may update the 2D surface data and the 3D depth data associated with a real-world environment by re-scanning the real-world environments (e.g., re-scanning every 10 seconds) using imaging sensor 1926 and depth sensor 1924. Such re-scanning may be triggered in multiple ways. For example, host device 1804 may be triggered to attempt a rescan at periodic intervals (e.g., a setting to attempt a rescan every 20 seconds, every 5 minutes. etc.), in response to a change in the location of host device 1804, and/or in response to actions taken by remote device 1810 (e.g., receiving a message requesting a re-scan). Additionally or alternatively, host device 1804 may receive a user input to rescan a portion of the environment. In such instances, host device 1804 may acquire new depth sensor data from depth sensor 1924 and image sensor data from imaging sensor 1926 in response to the user input.”).
On the other hand, Bhushan fails to explicitly disclose but IWAI discloses automatically determining a first virtual position of the first operator within the environment, in particular using a position of an operator’s avatar in the virtual reality (IWAI, “[0050] With reference to FIG. 1, a description is given of a schematic configuration of a virtual space distribution system 100 (or a social VR system). [0078] In FIG. 10A, the virtual space 200A of the user A includes the avatar 4A, the avatar 4B, and the virtual room 7A in which the avatars 4A and 4B are arranged. The avatar 4B is operated by the user B, and is configured to move in association with the action of the user B. For example, a position of the avatar 4A (4B) may be identified based on a position of the HMD 110 of the user A (user B)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined IWAI and Bhushan. That is, adding the avatars associated with the users of IWAI to the VR system of Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been improving a virtual experience of the user within the virtual space shared by a plurality of users (IWAI, [0154]).
Regarding claim 15, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites “A system for remote 3D-laser scanning of an environment comprising: a virtual reality display for displaying virtual reality to at least a first remote operator, at least a first scanner deployed in the environment, a control and evaluation computing unit, a data connection for data transmission between the virtual reality display, the first scanner and the control and evaluation computing unit”.
Bhushan further discloses A system for remote 3D-laser scanning of an environment comprising: a virtual reality display for displaying virtual reality to at least a first remote operator, at least a first scanner deployed in the environment, a control and evaluation computing unit, a data connection for data transmission between the virtual reality display, the first scanner and the control and evaluation computing unit (Bhushan, “(315) the host device may scan the environment using a depth sensor to acquire three-dimensional (3D) depth data. (320) Extended reality application 1814 and/or mobile operations application 1816 may display the content to the user via host device 1804 and/or remote device 1819. (315) a host device uses various sensors to scan a scene that is a portion of a real-world environment. (345) For example, host device 1804 may execute an extended reality (e.g., augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), and/or virtual reality (VR)) application, which presents a portion of a real-world environment, performance metrics associated with assets in the real-world environment. (336) In general, processor 1802 may retrieve and execute programming instructions stored in system memory 1812. (377) Tunnel bridge 1906 is a device that establishes communications with one or more devices included in the networked computer environment 1900”).
Regarding claim 16, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses A computer program product comprising program code, which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium and having computer-executable instructions for performing, when executed on a control and evaluation computing unit of a system (Bhushan, “(522) 19. In some implementations, a non-transitory computer readable medium stores instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps. (525) Any combination of one or more computer readable medium(s) may be utilized. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can include, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.”)
Regarding claim 2, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses providing a virtual reality scene to at least a second remote operator representing at least a second part of the environment (Bhushan, “(353) Alternatively, remote device 1810-1 may use data included in the XR stream to generate rendered asset 1932 (e.g., a 3D model of real-world asset 1912) in remote XR environment 1930, while remote device 1810-2 may use data included in the XR stream to generate rendered asset 1942 (e.g., a 2D model of real-world asset 1912) in remote environment 1940.”).
automatically determining at least a second virtual position of the second operator within the environment (Bhushan, “(368) after mobile operations application 1816 generates remote environment 1940, mobile operations application 1816 may provide navigational controls that enable the remote user to change the position of remote device 1810-2 within remote environment 1940 independent of the position of host device 1804”),
automatically defining the scan region based on a geometric relation of said first and second virtual position (Bhushan, “(316) The remote device receives the XR stream and renders, based on the correlated 2D surface data and 3D depth data encapsulated in the XR stream, a portion of the real-world environment for presentation at the location of the remote device. (362) Upon generating the scene, XR application 1814 may respond to navigation inputs (e.g., physically moving remote device 1810-1, applying navigation inputs) by changing the viewing position of remote device 1810-1 within the remote XR environment 1930 and presenting a different portion of the scene. (414) For example, the remote user may toggle avatars of other participants in the remote collaboration session to determine the position of each participant's device relative to the physical space”).
On the other hand, Bhushan fails to explicitly disclose but IWAI discloses automatically determining at least a second virtual position of the second operator within the environment, in particular using a position of an operator’s avatar in the virtual reality scene (IWAI, “[0050] With reference to FIG. 1, a description is given of a schematic configuration of a virtual space distribution system 100 (or a social VR system). [0078] In FIG. 10A, the virtual space 200A of the user A includes the avatar 4A, the avatar 4B, and the virtual room 7A in which the avatars 4A and 4B are arranged. The avatar 4B is operated by the user B, and is configured to move in association with the action of the user B. For example, a position of the avatar 4A (4B) may be identified based on a position of the HMD 110 of the user A (user B)”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 3, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses wherein the scan region is defined based on an area or volume of defined size with the virtual position as anchor point or as a central point (Bhushan, “(410) remote device 1810-1 may determine an anchor position for the scene and may render portions of the scene relative to the anchor position. In such instances, XR application 1814 included in remote device 1810-1 may determine the position of remote device 1810-1 relative to the anchor position in order to determine the position of remote device 1810-1 relative to portions of the scene. Upon determining the position of remote device 1810-1 relative to the portions of the scene, XR application 1814 may present remote XR environment portion 2232 to reflect the position of remote device 1810-1”).
Regarding claim 8, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses wherein an operator’s viewing direction is automatically determined and taken into account in the automatic defining of the scan region (Bhushan, “(362) Upon generating the scene, XR application 1814 may respond to navigation inputs (e.g., physically moving remote device 1810-1, applying navigation inputs) by changing the viewing position of remote device 1810-1 within the remote XR environment 1930 and presenting a different portion of the scene”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Desrochers (US 20210291242).
Regarding claim 4, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 3.
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI fails to explicitly disclose but Desrochers discloses wherein for defining the size of the area or volume: technical capabilities of a deployed scanner designated for scanning the scan region and/or operator access rights to the environment is taken into account (Desrochers, “[0135] a LIDAR system is used to scan a specified region within a fume hood to create an object presence signal as an equipment status parameter 806 for implementing minimum flow setback. [0136] The region above a specified area 1302 which forms a defined zone of 1303 may vary based on the sensing capabilities of object sensor 1301 and its position within hood 714. Sensor 1301 may include any type of practical object detection including but not limited to: a LIDAR system, a CMOS based imaging system, …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Desrochers into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan. That is, applying the defined zone based on sensing capabilities of the object sensor of Desrochers to the scanner of IWAI and Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to accurately estimate the available scanning area for the imaging system (Desrochers, [0136] the defined zone of 1303 shall include the area of 1302 and regions above the area of 1302 that sensor 1301 is adjusted to sense).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Gomez (US 20230029105).
Regarding claim 5, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 2.
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI fails to explicitly disclose but Gomez discloses wherein the scan region is defined based on an overlap of the areas or volumes defined for the first and the second operator or in case no such overlap exists, separate scan regions are defined for each operator (Gomez, “[0063] By way of illustration, areas 930A through 930E can be understood as different fields of view provided by the different LiDAR sensors 902 in FIG. 9A. [0064] These areas overlap and can be consolidated to provide the final overall FoV 920. In some cases, points extending outside the rectilinear area defined by 920 can be ignored or utilized to expand the FoV into an irregular shape”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Gomez into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan. That is, applying the determining final FOV based on multiple LiDAR sensors of Gomez to define the scan region based on multiple scanners of IWAI and Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the user can utilize the LiDAR sensors 902 in a similar fashion to quickly shift between nearfield focus and broader field view (Gomez, [0064]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Russell et al. (US 20190107606).
Regarding claim 7, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI fails to explicitly disclose but Russell discloses wherein the additional scan data is generated for refining a region having a scan resolution below a desired scan resolution, in particular for filling a scan gap (Russell, “[0094] In particular embodiments, lidar system 100 may perform a standard-resolution scan to determine a distance, location, or shape of one or more targets 130. Additionally, lidar system 100 may perform a high-resolution scan in combination with a standard-resolution scan to determine additional or refined information about a distance, location, or shape of one or more targets 130”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Russell into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan. That is, adding the high-resolution scan of Russell to the scanning system of IWAI and Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to allow a distance ambiguity to be resolved, resulting in distance, location, or shape information which is free from distance ambiguity (Russell, [0094]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Kumar (US 20230395096).
Regarding claim 9, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses wherein scan data comprises points of scanned objects of the scan region (Bhushan, “(397) XR application 1814 may present scanning region 2124 that corresponds to a specific region or a specific object within the physical space. (438) Scanning engine 2602 generates one or more meshes 2606 based on 3D data (“3D points 2608”) from depth sensor 1924 and 2D data (“2D frames 2610”) from image sensor 1926”).
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI fails to explicitly disclose but Kumar discloses wherein the data comprises significant data of objects which are automatically prioritized for streaming (Kumar, “[0053] In some examples, when multiple streams include at least one object of interest at a single instance, the streams can be prioritized to provide the most information to the end user of computing system 600”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Kumar into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan. That is, adding the prioritizing the streaming of Kumar to the scanning data of IWAI and Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been the streams can be prioritized to provide the most information to the end user of computing system (Kumar, [0053]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Kumar (US 20230395096) and Johnson et al. (US 20220211533).
Regarding claim 10, Bhushan in view of IWAI and Kumar discloses The method according to claim 9.
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI and Kumar fails to explicitly disclose but Johnson discloses wherein significant points are automatically defined by at least one of: a quality threshold, a measured distance value, a calculated distance to the virtual position of the operator, a usability for -at least rough- meshing, a viewing direction of the operator (“[0017] For example, points within a specific distance or following a certain path from the initial data point may be used to define additional points for designation and assessment of the feature(s). [0045] From the 3D point-cloud data set or corresponding digital file format (stl), critical data points (42) required for the manufacture of a selected custom device, defined as “critical points” (42) can be parameterized in order to collect desired measurements (28). In order to generate a clean and usable set of critical points (42) for the application, one or more reference points (24) are to be selected. A reference point (24) is a user or system selected point within the 3D point-cloud data set that represents a morphological feature, for example, around which measurements (28) can be determined, and is used to orient and calibrate additional critical points (42) within the 3D point-cloud data set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Johnson into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan, Kumar, to include all limitations of claim 10. That is, applying the critical points of Johnson to the significant points of the scanning data of IWAI and Bhushan, Kumar. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The user may be presented directly with measurements for use in the selection or manufacture of a properly fitting medical device (Johnson, [0020]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhushan et al. (US 11551421) in view of IWAI et al. (US 20180165887), and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 20220100195).
Regarding claim 11, Bhushan in view of IWAI discloses The method according to claim 1.
Bhushan further discloses at least a second scanner is deployed in the environment (Bhushan, “(353) Alternatively, remote device 1810-1 may use data included in the XR stream to generate rendered asset 1932 (e.g., a 3D model of real-world asset 1912) in remote XR environment 1930, while remote device 1810-2 may use data included in the XR stream to generate rendered asset 1942 (e.g., a 2D model of real-world asset 1912) in remote environment 1940”).
On the other hand, Bhushan in view of IWAI fails to explicitly disclose but Zhang discloses for said automatically transmitting of scan instructions, suitability regarding location in the environment and/or capabilities of a respective scanner is automatically taken into account for automatically choosing first or second scanner for the scanning of the first scan region (Zhang, “[0120] In some embodiments, other sensors are used. The BEA flat scanners are a suitable scanner, chosen largely because their small size allows fork tip mounting”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Zhang into the combination of IWAI and Bhushan. That is, adding the selecting based on the suitability of the scanner of Zhang to choose the scanner of IWAI and Bhushan. The motivation/ suggestion would have been small size allows fork tip mounting (Zhang, [0120]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6, 12-14, 17 is/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:
Regarding claim 6, it recites, wherein in case multiple scan regions are defined, automatically prioritizing scan regions for scanning according to the number of operators associated therewith. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 12, it recites, wherein the scan region is automatically divided into sub-scan regions for automatic parallel scanning with multiple scanners according to the number and capabilities of available scanners. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Regarding claim 13, it recites, wherein generating and live-streaming of scan data is prioritized to generating and live-streaming of additional scan data at least until a virtual reality 3D-model comprising the scan region is provided to every operator, in particular in case the number of available scanners is lower than the number of users. None of the prior arts on the record or any of the prior arts searched, alone or in combination, renders obvious the combination of elements recited in the claim(s) as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618 12/24/2025