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 .
Response to Amendments
Claim 3 has been amended to correct for the rejections made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112 and as such the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 regarding rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In particular, applicant asserts they have “amended independent claim[] 6” and request withdrawal of the rejection as a result. Examiner disagrees. First claim 6 is not independent, and second, the claim has not been amended. Furthermore, applicant has not addressed the merits of the rejection in the arguments, and merely requests withdrawal without explanation of why the rejection is improper. Accordingly, the claim remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite a mental process under step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis, as the claimed solution of the invention is directed to processing massive datasets of 3D spatial coordinates, and that the calculating and extracting limitations process millions of coordinates and therefore cannot be performed in the human mind alone (see page 5 of applicant’s correspondence filed 3/18/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, even if the calculating and extracting steps argued by the applicant were not recitations of abstract idea concepts, the applicant ignores the remaining abstract concepts recited by the limitations of the claim which would satisfy prong 1, and require further analysis (i.e. step 2A, prong 2 and then possibly step 2B). Second, applicant argues that the limitations of calculating and extracting are not able to be performed in the human mind because of the extent of the number of calculations (see page 5 of applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/2026). Applicant ignores the other categories of judicially recognized abstract ideas, including mathematical concepts which these concepts also fall within. Finally, applicant argues that the sheer extent of the millions of data points on which the operations are performed would remove the limitations from the mental process abstract concept category because performing such an extensive amount of calculations would be too much to be performed in the mind (see page 5 of applicant’s arguments filed 3/18/2026). The claims, however, are not tied to anything that requires millions of data points. The claim merely recites a point cloud generically, without any technological principle or limitation that requires millions of data points, such as would be required in computer vision data resulting from a camera scanning 3D environment or otherwise. Without tying the claim to any particular use, and merely reciting all the limitations in the generic, broad manner as currently drafted, the claims attempt to claim the calculations are performed on any data set no matter the size. A point cloud is just a set of data points in coordinate space, which could be as small as 2 points per cloud, which could easily be a mental operation of identifying and deciding relationships and values of given coordinates in space. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the claims are eligible under Step 2A, Prong 2, because the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application, as “the Specification clearly identifies a specific technological problem in the realm of 3D laser scanning” (see page 6 of applicant’s correspondence filed 3/18/2026). Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument.
In particular, the claims are not directed to any particular technology or improvement other than merely calculations of data itself. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The practical applications that applicant argues render the otherwise abstract concepts eligible are not at all incorporated into the claim itself. Instead, the claim merely recites the abstract concepts without significantly more. In other words, the claim merely recites a series of abstract concepts that use a computer at most as an apply-it type tool to automate the abstract concepts, without reciting any further limitations that tie the abstract concepts to a practical application or improvement. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Examiner notes that in light of the details provided by the amendments in claim 1, the limitations of claim 5 would tie the otherwise abstract concepts to a practical application, namely object recognition and processing of computer data that is a particular technological improvement and/or application.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 claim 6, the claim recites “wherein a curve passing through points in the cluster is obtained for a cluster positioned between the utility pole models and having a high density.” The term “high density” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high density” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Neither applicant’s claim nor specification clarifies what is intended as “high” as relates to density of points and therefore the scope of the phrase “herein a curve passing through points in the cluster is obtained for a cluster positioned between the utility pole models and having a high density” is unclear, as one of ordinary skill in the art is not reasonably apprised of what would constitute a “high density” as opposed to low density or otherwise. As such the claim is rendered indefinite.
Further regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the utility pole models” in line 5. The limitation lacks antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite.
Further regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a curve passing through points in the cluster is obtained for a cluster positioned between the utility pole models and having a high density” which is unclear as to whether the high density refers to the curve or to the points. Examiner respectfully requests applicant clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is reproduced below with bracketed paragraph designators added for clarity and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
1. An apparatus for creating a three-dimensional model of an object having a small diameter from point cloud data representing three-dimensional coordinates, the apparatus comprising
[(A)] one or more processors configured to execute instructions that cause the apparatus to perform operations comprising:
[(B)] clustering points included in the point cloud data to generate a plurality of clusters;
[(C)] calculating a cluster length for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein the cluster length is based on a linear distance between endpoints of the cluster;
[(D)] selecting a first cluster having a maximum cluster length among the plurality of clusters;
[(E)] calculating a line on an x-y plane and a catenary curve in a three-dimensional space using the points included in the first cluster;
[(F)] extracting, from the plurality of clusters other than the first cluster, a second cluster comprising point clouds disposed on the line on the X-Y plane and located on the catenary curve in three-dimensional space; and
[(G)] determining the first cluster and the extracted second cluster are a joined cluster;
[(H)] creating a three-dimensional model of the object by connecting points included in the joined cluster
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, the office is guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, the Office first determines what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the user of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”)
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. At 182 n. 7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Accordingly, we turn to step 2A of the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Limitations (B) through (H) are all merely reciting mathematical concepts that fall under the judicial exceptions for abstract ideas.
Regarding limitation (B), the claim limitation merely recites clustering points of point cloud data to generate a plurality of clusters. This is merely a recitation of a mental process, involving looking at a bunch of points and grouping them mentally into separate clusters, without more. At most, this is at most a mathematical operation in the form of “clustering”, as applicant’s own specification (see PG-Pub 20250014271 for citations made to specification filed by applicant on 5/20/2024, herein after “Spec.”) discloses clustering as merely using a distance value from a point value and calculating distances from the point value to other data points to create a set of data points (Spec. ¶30). At most, this is merely a recitation of an abstract idea in the form of a mental process or at most recitation of a mathematical concept.
Regarding limitation (C), the claim merely recites calculating a cluster length for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein the cluster length is based on a linear distance between endpoints of the cluster, which is merely a mathematical calculation based on linear distance to obtain additional length values. This could be merely a mathematical conversion of numerical information, similar to conversion of data in Gottschalk v. Benson, or a recitation of a algebraic formula calculating a cluster length based on linear distance values. Alternatively, this is a recitation of a mental process of merely associating data or performing some sort of simple calculation for two clusters of data based on a given linear distance value. In other words, the claim fails to provide any details of the calculation or any specifics that might require computation on a computer as more than merely an apply-it type scenario of automation for an otherwise abstract concept. As such, the claim at most recites a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim (D), the limitation recites selecting a first cluster having a maximum cluster length among the plurality of clusters. The limitation is at most merely a recitation of a mental process, i.e. analyzing and making an opinion or judgement as two which data has the maximum cluster length, either visually looking at the clusters or by analyzing given lengths and picking the largest of the group. Accordingly, the limitation is directed to a mathematical concept abstract idea.
Regarding limitation (E), the limitation recites, calculating a line on an x-y plane and a catenary curve in a three-dimensional space using the points included in the first cluster. This is at most merely reciting a mathematical calculation of using known line and curve fitting or regression mathematical calculations. Without more, the limitation merely recites an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept.
Regarding limitation (F), the limitation recites extracting a second cluster made up of point clouds disposed on the line on on the X-Y plane and located on the catenary curve in 3D space. This is merely a recitation of calculating points as part of a set that are in a particular mathematical arrangement, which is a mathematical operation. Applicant’s specification discloses this as merely performing a grouping of points that are along a line, such as using a RANSAC straight line approximation (see Spec. ¶78), but can be any technique for merely grouping data points that lie on a line, which is merely a mathematical operation of spatial values of data points, such as use simple set theory operations of union, set difference, and intersection. Furthermore, this is at most merely categorizing data, of adjusting the categorizing of data in a geometric set, or an attempt to claim a method of organizing human activity for organizing information. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract concept.
Limitation (G) merely recites determining the first cluster and the extracted second cluster are a joined cluster. This is at most a recitation of an abstract idea in the form of a mental process of looking at data and making a judgment or opinion as to the representation of the data.
Limitation (H) merely recites creating a three-dimensional model of the object by connecting the extracted point clouds. This is merely reciting the organization of data points in some mathematical model that forms a 3D set of data, such as merely connecting groupings of points in space, which is at most reciting an abstract concept in the form of a mathematical concept, or even logically connecting data by connecting the association of two points between groups. This is at most merely the recitation of a mathematical concept of geometry, algebra or set theory, or alternatively merely a mental process of envisioning a 3D model of two points connected in a small data set of points.
It should be noted that the claim is not tied to any particular application or purpose other than the obtaining of data, computation of data, and extraction of data. There is no limitation that ties the steps of the invention to any technology or practical application in itself. Merely reciting that the apparatus is for creating a 3D model of an object, recited in a generic manner without any clarification or otherwise, results in an attempt to claim even use of a tiny data set of points.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim recites additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Limitation (A) recites “one or more processors configured to execute instructions that cause the apparatus to perform operations”, which is at most merely a recitation of performing operations (which are otherwise recitations of abstract concepts) on generic computer components. A broad recitation of "computing" only entails a description of a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations "data processing system," "communications controller," and "data storage unit" were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11-12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea "would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application").
STEP 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether the claim adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Limitation (A) recites “one or more processors configured to execute instructions that cause the apparatus to perform operations”, which is at most merely a recitation of performing operations (which are otherwise recitations of abstract concepts) on generic computer components. Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). Merely implementing the steps on a computer, as recited in the claim, does not provide any particular technological advance to the operation of the computer or to a particular field of technology, other than the recited abstract ideas themselves.
As such, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination , amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 2, the claim merely recites determining points disposed on one straight line on an x-y plane parallel to the ground, which is merely reciting an abstract concept in the form of mental process (namely looking at a group of points and determining whether they lie on line or not), or at most a mathematical concept of calculating the position of a point to be equivalent to a position of a line in cartesian space. The claim also recites “wherein extracting point clouds disposed on a curve coincident with the curve passing through the points comprises extracting the apparatus extracts a point cloud disposed on a curve coinciding with the curve passing through the clustered points and disposed on the same straight line”. This is merely a recitation of calculating points as part of a set that are in a particular mathematical arrangement, which is a mathematical operation, which is merely an abstract mathematical concept of calculating spatial values of data points. As such, the claim is rejected based on reciting ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “wherein a point cloud having a set density or higher on an x-y plane parallel to the ground is deleted as a point cloud other than the object having a small diameter.” The claim is merely reciting a subtraction of data values from a set which is merely an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept. As such, the claim is rejected based on reciting ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites, “wherein a point cloud having a z coordinate corresponding to a height at which the object exists is extracted from the point cloud data, and the clustering is performed using the extracted point cloud data.” This is merely a mental process, such as a person looking at the data points, identifying points that are of a certain height and grouping the points mentally, or at most merely reciting an abstract mathematical concept of performing a mathematical grouping of data based on a calculated height value for generating a data set, without more. As such, the claim is rejected based on reciting ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is merely a method of claim 1, which merely recites the mathematical concepts discussed for claim 1, without the additional limitations of a processor. Accordingly, the steps of the method are directed to abstract concepts for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. As the claim is limited only to the steps directed to abstract concepts alone, the claim does not recite additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above. Claim 9 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations. The operations are the same operations performed by the apparatus of claim 1 and are directed to abstract concepts for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Further regarding claim 9, the additional recitation of the non-transitory computer-readable medium is merely a recitation of generic computer components for otherwise performing abstract concepts alone. A broad recitation of "computing" only entails a description of a generic computer component that amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and therefore is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. Without more than a general recitation of the conventional components, the limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract concepts themselves. Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to ineligible subject matter for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
In particular, claim 5 includes limitations which tie the otherwise ineligible subject matter of claim 1 to a particular technological improvement which renders the claim eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Furthermore, the claim is directed to a combination of elements as a whole which are not taught or rendered obvious. In addition the teachings of the prior art provided in the Non-final rejection mailed 11/18/2025, additional prior art made of record includes:
Cheng et al. (Cheng, L.; Tong, L.; Wang, Y.; Li, M. Extraction of Urban Power Lines from Vehicle-Borne LiDAR Data. Remote Sens. 2014, 6, 3302-3320. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs6043302), which discloses clustering points included in the point cloud data (Cheng, p. 3309, section 3.2 Power Line Points Clustering: Fig. 5 and 1st paragraph: points A, B, C ,and D first clustered; p. 3310, section 3.2.1 Initial Clustering, 1st par.: points clustering to create none initial clusters using AutoClust Algorithm) calculating a cluster length for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein the cluster length is based on a linear distance between endpoints of the cluster (Cheng, p. 3310, last paragraph, step 1: initial clusters divided into types based on span width – i.e. must determine a lineary length to find span width), extracting, from the plurality of clusters other than the first cluster, a second cluster comprising point clouds disposed on the line on the X-Y plane and located on the catenary curve in the three-dimensional space (Cheng, p. 3312, step 2: recovery of broken clusters: for the current broken cluster, select another broken cluster within the span width, fitting a parabola to the points in the current broken cluster and other broken clusters; and determining the first cluster and the extracted second cluster are a joined cluster (Cheng, p. 3312, step 2: “Merge the broken clusters based on the smallest residual and calculate the distance between this fitted model and other broken clusters. If the average distance is less than a threshold (0.1 m), merge them.”); creating a three-dimensional model of the object by connecting points included in the joined cluster (Cheng, p. 3312, Figure 8 and Section 3.3: After clustering the single power line points, mathematical models can be used to fit the power lines. Based on the characteristics of two high ends and the low middle, which is similar to a parabola, we used the polynomial equation z = ax2 + bxy + cy2 + d to fit the power lines. Figure 8a shows the power line points and Figure 8b shows the fitted power line. We can see that the fitted curve agrees with the power line points. Thus, it is reasonable to use this polynomial equation to fit the power lines.)
Claim 5, however, differs from the prior art of record in that the references fail to teach the combination of creating a 3D model of an object having a small diameter from appoint cloud data representing three-dimensional coordinates, including clustering points to generate a plurality of clusters, calculating a cluster length for each cluster of the plurality of clusters, wherein the cluster length is based on a linear distance between endpoints of the cluster, and selecting a first cluster having a maximum cluster length among the plurality of clusters, and calculating a line on an x-y plane and a catenary curve in a three-dimensional space using the points included in the first cluster, and extracting the points disposed on the X-Y plane and located on the catenary curve in 3D space to determine the first cluster and extracted cluster are a joined cluster and creating a 3D model connecting the points of the joined cluster, as claimed. It is noted that the calculating of a line on the x-y plane
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A BEUTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (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, DANIEL HAJNIK can be reached at 571-272-7642. 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.
/WILLIAM A BEUTEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights