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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benromano et al. (US 20210192099 A1) hereinafter referred to as Benromano, in view of Nash et al. (US 20180308249 A1) hereinafter referred to as Nash.
Claim 1. A method comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional scan associated with a physical environment, the three-dimensional scan (Benromano, [0114] 3D scanning the real scene 140) including at least two surface segments (Benromano, [0085][0112] walls, surfaces within real scene);
generating, based at least in part on the three-dimensional scan, a three-dimensional point cloud associated with the physical environment (Benromano, [0114] generating a 3D point cloud);
Benromano does not disclose determining, based at least in part on the three-dimensional point cloud, a network uncertainty; and adjusting, based at least in part on the network uncertainty, a position of a first surface segment of the at least two surface segments within the three-dimensional scan.
Nash discloses determining relative misalignment of the point cloud with respect to the common coordinate system (e.g., a predetermined common coordinate system to which point cloud 103a was registered or a common coordinate system established based upon the orientation of point cloud 103a) (Nash, [0045] determining misalignment is the determining of network uncertainty); Thereafter, having performed pose estimation for point cloud 103a, the point cloud may be rectified (adjusted) (Nash, [0045] rectified after determining misalignment).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Benromano with the teachings of Nash since they are both analogous in 3D object reconstruction related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Benromano with the teachings of Nash in order to provide simplified registration processing.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benromano et al. (US 20210192099 A1) hereinafter referred to as Benromano, in view of Sheffield et al. (US 10192115 B1) hereinafter referred to as Sheffield.
Claim 9. A method comprising: receiving a three-dimensional scan associated with a physical environment (Benromano, [0114] 3D scanning the real scene 140); detecting a first object within the three-dimensional scan (Benromano, [0069] and [0070]); generating, based at least in part on the three-dimensional data, a three-dimensional point cloud of the first object (Benromano, [0114] generating a 3D point cloud);
Benromano does not disclose determine, based at least in part on the three-dimensional point cloud of the first object, an object model associated with the object.
Sheffield discloses identifying the objects in the real-world scene and/or associate those objects with computer-generated object models (or other objects) that match or would coordinate (i.e., “might go with”) the real-world object(s) (Sheffield paragraph (2)) and also once a point cloud has been generated, it may be compared to point cloud information stored in object model data 240 with respect to a number of objects in order to identify similarities between the point cloud data. In some embodiments, a machine learning technique, such as deep learning techniques, may be used to identify an object from the object model data 240 that matches an object in the input sensor output (Sheffield paragraph (42)).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Benromano with the teachings of Sheffield since they are both analogous in 3D object reconstruction related field.
One ordinary skilled in the art before the filing of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Benromano with the teachings of Sheffield in order to automatically recognize real world objects in a scene (or displayed image) and determine (and record) each object's position (e.g., in a room) and/or each object's orientation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: no prior art teaches alone or in combination the italicized and bolded features.Claim 15. A method comprising: receiving a three-dimensional model of an object; generating, based at least in part on the model, a first three-dimensional point cloud of the object; generating a first plurality of partial point clouds associated with the object; generating, based at least in part on the first plurality of partial point clouds, a second plurality of partial point clouds associated with the object, individual ones of the second plurality of partial point clouds having fewer points than a corresponding point cloud of the first plurality of partial point clouds; and combining at least two of the second plurality of partial point clouds into a training point cloud associated with the object.Claims 16-20 depend on allowable claim 15. Therefore, claims 16-20 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 15.
Claims 2-8 and 10-14 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: Claim 2, no prior art teaches the features “The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: generating a binary mask by projecting the surface segment on a floor associated with the three-dimensional scan; and closing, based at least in part on the binary mask, the at least two surface segments into orthogonal contours.
Claims 3-8 depend directly/indirectly on allowable claim 2. Therefore, claims 3-8 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 10, no prior art teaches the features “The method as recited in claim 9, wherein detecting the first object further comprises: segmenting the three-dimensional scan to generate a segmented scan; and classifying the segmented data into one or more objects including the first object”.Claims 11-14 depend directly/indirectly on allowable claim 10. Therefore, claims 11-14 are allowable for the same reasons as claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US 20210347378 A1 A system and method for generating an importance occupancy grid map (OGM) for a vehicle are disclosed. The method includes: receiving a three-dimensional (3D) point cloud; receiving a binary map, the binary map associated with a set of GPS coordinates of the vehicle; receiving information representative of a planned path for the vehicle; and generating an importance OGM based on the 3D point cloud, the binary map, and the planned path for the vehicle using a map generation module.
US 20150015602 A1 A computer-implemented method is provided. The method may include receiving or identifying a first point cloud associated with a train-time object or model. The method may further include selecting one or more probes associated with the first point cloud wherein selection of the one or more probes is based upon, at least in part, a score of a particular feature associated with the first point cloud. The method may also include analyzing a second point cloud associated with a run-time object, wherein the analysis is based upon the first point cloud. This analysis may produce an estimate of the difference in pose between the train time object and the run time object. Pose estimates may be obtained by matching points between the two point clouds based in part on features used during probe selection. Pose estimates may be scored, and refined, using the points selected as probes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARTIN MUSHAMBO whose telephone number is (571)270-3390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:00AM-5:00PM).
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571) 272-2330. 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.
/MARTIN MUSHAMBO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615 03/06/2026