DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/1/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/3/25 is in accordance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 4 are acknowledged. In view of the amendments to claims 1 and 4, the objections to the claims are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 6 and 8 are also acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/1/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the interpretation of the claims as invoking 35 U.S.C. §112(f), Applicant argues in the Response on pages 6-7 that the claim limitations “a three-dimensional capture device for capturing”, “a processor for executing”, and “an interface device for playing” are recognized structural terms in the art that suggest sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
However, the “three-dimensional capture device for capturing” does not recite sufficient structure in the claim because it does not specify the structure of the “capture device” that performs the claimed function. In addition, Applicant’s specification discloses in paragraphs [0006], [0032], and [0040] (as discussed by Applicant on pages 6-7 of the Response) several examples for structural components for a “three-dimensional capture device”. There appear to be multiple options for structure in the specification for the “three-dimensional capture device”, which further supports that the invocation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is warranted and proper.
The “interface device for playing” does not recite sufficient structure in the claim because it does not specify the structure of the “interface device” that performs the claimed function. The claim limitation “interface device” is further described in para[0006] and [0023] (as discussed by Applicant on page 7 of the Response) with multiple examples of the hardware for such a device. There appear to be multiple options for structure in the specification for the “interface device”, which further supports that the invocation of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is warranted and proper.
Regarding “a processor for executing”, the Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the claim limitation will be removed from interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f).
Therefore, the interpretation of the claim limitations “a three-dimensional capture device” and “an interface device for playing” in view of 35 U.S.C. §112(f) is maintained.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Response that Tardif does not teach, “capturing a plurality of three-dimensional images of an object or an environment at different capture positions relative to a coordinate space over a capture process”. Specifically, Applicant argues that Tardif does not teach a single capture device moving to different positions during the capture process.
However, Tardif teaches an image camera component 22 may include an IR light component 24, a three-dimensional (3-D) camera 26 and an RGB camera 28 that may be used to capture the depth image of a scene (Fig. 2, col. 6, lines 25-34). In addition, Tardif teaches, for example, that the capture devices may organize the calculated depth information into vectors extending at different angles from the depth camera to a captured data point (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 1-15). There is no explicit recitation in claim 1 that the “three-dimensional capture device” only have a single camera or that the “capture device” is in motion to different positions in the environment. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “three-dimensional capture device” includes a single camera or multiple cameras (i.e., a network of cameras or imaging devices making up the “three-dimensional capture device”, as taught by Tardif).
In addition, Applicant argues on page 9 of the Response that Tardif does not teach “aligning the received plurality of three-dimensional images to generate a three-dimensional representation of the object or the environment”, as in claim 1. Specifically, that Tardif does not disclose a single device capturing images at different positions over time (page 9 of the Response).
However, as discussed above, the claim does not explicitly recite that the “three-dimensional capture device” only have a single camera or that the “capture device” is in motion to different positions in the environment. Tardif teaches that the stitching step 470 uses the data from the different capture devices 20 (i.e., “receiving”) (Fig. 9; col. 19, lines 33-42). In addition, Tardif teaches, for example, that the stitching engine may determine whether overlapping points in the views of the different capture devices align (i.e., “aligning”) and the process for stitching together the composite image (Figs. 7-9; col. 15, lines 43-55; col. 19, lines 33-42; col. 20, lines 9-20). The fact that Tardif teaches overlapping points indicates that the capture devices are capturing data from the same environment and relative to “a coordinate space” in that environment. As noted by Applicant on page 9 of the Response, Tardif teaches “a single 3-D world Cartesian coordinate system” that “includes all of the capture devices 20” (col. 14, lines 42-47). The capture devices 20 of Tardif are all capturing data while positioned in that same “coordinate system” (i.e., “coordinate space” of claim 1).
Therefore, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. In addition, please see the below-stated rejection of claim 1 for additional citations to the Tardif.
Regarding claims 2, 6, 10, 14, and 15, please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Regarding claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19, Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Response that Ninan does not cure the deficiencies of Tardif regarding the claim limitations of claim 1, “capturing a plurality of three-dimensional images of an object or an environment at different capture positions relative to a coordinate space over a capture process” and “aligning the received plurality of three-dimensional images to generate a three-dimensional representation of the object or the environment”.
However, Tardif was relied upon as teaching the “capturing” and “aligning” limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Therefore, Tardif and Ninan teach all of the limitations of claims 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 9, and 16, Applicant argues on pages 11-12 of the Response that Rosenstein does not cure the deficiencies of Tardif regarding the claim limitations of claim 1, “capturing a plurality of three-dimensional images of an object or an environment at different capture positions relative to a coordinate space over a capture process” and “aligning the received plurality of three-dimensional images to generate a three-dimensional representation of the object or the environment”.
However, Tardif was relied upon as teaching the “capturing” and “aligning” limitations of the independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Please see the above-stated discussion for claim 1 and the below-stated rejection of the claims.
Therefore, Tardif and Ninan teach all of the limitations of claims 7, 8, 9, and 16.
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 limitations use 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 limitations are: “a three-dimensional capture device for capturing” and “an interface device for displaying” in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Tardif et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,887).
In regard to claim 1, Tardif teaches a system for building a three-dimensional composite scene (Fig. 2, for example), the system comprising:
a three-dimensional capture device for capturing a plurality of three-dimensional images of an object or an environment (i.e., image camera component 22 may include an IR light component 24, a three-dimensional (3-D) camera 26 and an RGB camera 28 that may be used to capture the depth image of a scene) (Fig. 2, col. 6, lines 25-34) at different capture positions relative to a coordinate space over a capture process (i.e., the capture device 20 may be configured to capture video having a depth image that may include depth values via any suitable technique including, for example, time-of-flight, structured light, stereo image, or the like; the capture devices may organize the calculated depth information into "Z layers," or layers that may be perpendicular to a Z axis extending from the depth camera along its line of sight; the capture devices may organize the calculated depth information into vectors extending at different angles from the depth camera to a captured data point) (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 1-15);
a processor for executing instructions stored in memory (i.e. Fig. 2, processor 32, memory 34) (Fig. 2), wherein execution of the instructions by the processor includes:
receiving the plurality of three-dimensional images of the object or the environment (i.e. Fig. 9, stitching step 470, the data from the different capture devices 20) (Fig. 9; col. 19, lines 33-42); and
aligning the received plurality of three-dimensional images to generate a three-dimensional representation of the object or the environment (i.e. Fig. 9, stitching step 470, the data from the different capture devices 20, translated to the same view, should align with each other with the correct color values; in step 480, the stitching engine may determine whether overlapping points in the views of the different capture devices align; also, Fig. 7 discusses translating from camera view of an orthogonal 3-D world view which is a point cloud map of all data captured by capture device and Fig. 8 shows the location of step 470 within the process for stitching together the composite image) (Figs. 7-9; col. 15, lines 43-55; col. 19, lines 33-42; col. 20, lines 9-20); and
an interface device for displaying at least part of the three-dimensional representation of the object or of the environment (i.e., after the point cloud for a reconciled and composite image of a scene from all the cameras is stitched together, the image may be rendered in step 472 by an application running on the computing environment 12; rendering the representation of the play space on a display associated with the first and second capture devices) (Fig. 8, col. 2, lines 44-46; col. 20, lines 9-20).
In regard to claim 2, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. In addition, Tardif teaches wherein the interface device is remote to the three-dimensional capture device (i.e., Fig. 3B; the computer 241 may operate in a networked environment using logical connections to one or more remote computers, such as a remote computer 246) (Fig. 3B; col. 12, lines 6-19).
In regard to claim 6, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. In addition, Tardif teaches wherein the three-dimensional capture device includes a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit the plurality of three-dimensional images to the processor (i.e., each capture device 20 may be in communication with the computing environment 12 via a communication link 36; the communication link 36 may be…a wireless connection such as a wireless 802.11b, g, a, or n connection) (Fig. 2; col. 7, lines 42-48).
In regard to claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 14, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 6 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 3-5, 11-13, and 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tardif et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,887; cited in the IDS filed 8/13/24) in view of Ninan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0162366; cited in the IDS filed 8/13/24).
In regard to claim 3, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. However, Tardif does not explicitly teach wherein the three-dimensional images includes metadata.
In the same field of endeavor, Ninan teaches wherein the three-dimensional images includes metadata (i.e., the image processing system (100) may comprise software and/or hardware components (e.g., 316) configured to output one or more depth scanlines as a part of, or as an addition to, stereographic videos or images, as metadata) (para[0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Tardif and Ninan because Ninan teaches methods that allow using low-end cameras to capture 2D or 3D HDR pictures with minimal additional processing (See, for example, para[0005] of Ninan). Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Tardif with those of Ninan.
In regard to claim 4, Tardif and Ninan teach all of the limitations of claims 1 and 3 discussed above. However, Tardif does not explicitly teach wherein the metadata includes distance information for features included in the plurality of three-dimensional images.
In the same field of endeavor, Ninan teaches wherein the metadata includes distance information for features included in the plurality of three-dimensional images (i.e., the imaging processing system (100) may further compute depth measures from the disparity measures, creates, based on the computed depth measures, a depth map for the stereoscopic HDR image, and outputs the stereoscopic HDR image, with depth map as metadata) (para[0088]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Tardif and Ninan for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 3.
In regard to claim 5, Tardif and Ninan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, and 4 discussed above. In addition, Tardif teaches wherein the aligning the received plurality of three-dimensional images includes iteratively aligning the plurality of three-dimensional images based on the distance information (i.e., each capture device 20 may provide the depth information and images captured by, for example, the 3-D camera 26 and/or the RGB camera 28; data from a capture device depth camera 26 may be sufficient to construct the orthogonal 3-D world view in step 446) (col. 7, lines 63-65; col. 15, lines 56-65).
In regard to claim 11, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 12, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 3 and 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 13, Tardif and Ninan teach all of the limitations of claims 1, 3, 4, and 12 above. In addition, Tardif teaches wherein the align the received plurality of three-dimensional images is based on the distance information for the features respectively included therein (i.e., each capture device 20 may include an image camera component 22; according to an example embodiment, the image camera component 22 may be a depth camera that may capture the depth image of a scene; the depth image may include a two-dimensional (2-D) pixel area of the captured scene where each pixel in the 2-D pixel area may represent a depth value such as a length or distance in, for example, centimeters, millimeters, or the like of an object in the captured scene from the camera) (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 16-34) and align the features to one another in the three-dimensional coordinate space based on the distance information to generate the three-dimensional representations of the object or the environment concurrently with the capture process (i.e. Fig. 9, stitching step 470, the data from the different capture devices 20, translated to the same view, should align with each other with the correct color values; in step 480, the stitching engine may determine whether overlapping points in the views of the different capture devices align; also, Fig. 7 discusses translating from camera view of an orthogonal 3-D world view which is a point cloud map of all data (note: which would include depth data) captured by capture device and Fig. 8 shows the location of step 470 within the process for stitching together the composite image) (Figs. 7-9; col. 15, lines 43-55; col. 19, lines 33-42; col. 20, lines 9-20).
In regard to claim 17, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 5 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 18, the claim recites analogous limitations to claims 3 and 4 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
In regard to claim 19, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 13 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 7, 8, 9, and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tardif et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,602,887; cited in the IDS filed 8/13/24) in view of Rosenstein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0185094; cited in the IDS filed 8/13/24).
In regard to claim 7, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. However, Tardif does not explicitly teach wherein the system further includes a rotatable stage on which the three-dimensional capture device is mounted thereon.
In the same field endeavor, Rosenstein teaches wherein the system further includes a rotatable stage on which the three-dimensional capture device is mounted thereon (i.e., the robot 100 may need to scan the imaging sensor 450 from side to side (e.g., to view an object 12 or around an occlusion 16; this may involve rotating the robot 100 in place with the drive system 200, or rotating a mirror, prism, variable angle micro-mirror, or MEMS mirror array associated with the imaging sensor 450) (Fig. 17A; para[0171]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Tardif and Rosenstein because Rosenstein teaches a mobile robot with a drive system that can be used for home or commercial assistance such as video conferencing, telecommunications, etc. (See, for example, para[0094]-[0095] of Rosenstein). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Tardif with those of Rosenstein.
In regard to claim 8, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. However, while Tardif teaches a display (col. 20, lines 9-20), it does not explicitly teach where the interface device includes a live display area configured to display a live video feed of the three-dimensional representation as it is captured by the three-dimensional capture device.
In the same field of endeavor, Rosenstein teaches where the interface device includes a live display area configured to display a live video feed of the three-dimensional representation as it is captured by the three-dimensional capture device (i.e., the image sensor 450 of the robot 100 can capture images rely video for communication to 1/3 party (e.g., the display taught above by Tardif, or the remote computer)) (para[0266]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Tardif and Rosenstein for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 7.
In regard to claim 9, Tardif teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. However, Tardif does not explicitly teach wherein the interface device is configured to identify holes in the three-dimensional representation.
In the same field of endeavor, Rosenstein teaches wherein the interface device is configured to identify holes in the three-dimensional representation (i.e., the controller 500 may use the imaging sensor 450 (e.g., a depth map sensor) when constructing a 3D map of the surface of and object 12 to fill in holes from depth discontinuities and to anchor metric scale of the 3D model) (para[0185]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Tardif and Rosenstein for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 7.
In regard to claim 16, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 8 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm EST.
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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488