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 10/09/2025 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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaub et al. ("Point cloud to BIM registration for robot localization and Augmented Reality." 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality Adjunct (ISMAR-Adjunct). IEEE, 2022.) (Hereinafter referred to as Schaub) in view of Uhlenbrock et al. (US 10540813 B1) (Hereinafter referred to as Uhlenbrock).
Regarding claim 1, Schaub discloses A computing system for aligning laser scan data, comprising: (Figure 2)
a processor coupled to a memory that stores instructions, which, upon execution by the processor, cause the processor to: (3.3 Hardware configurations, “The payload computer is Intel NUC with Intel Core i7 CPU (4 Cores) and 16 GB RAM,OSWindows10.”)
generate a voxel map including an outer surface voxel layer for the target object; (3.2 Voxelization of the BIM model, “The registration process starts with the loading and the voxelization of the BIM model”)
compute a respective transformation matrix for each of the scan point sets of scan points that fits the scan points in each set to positions within the outer surface voxel layer; (3.1 System architecture, “returns the transformation from the point cloud coordinate frame to the BIM model coordinate frame.”)
apply the respective transformation matrix for each scan point set to the scan points in the respective scan point set to thereby transform a position of each of the scan points in each scan point set that lies partially or wholly outside of the outer surface voxel layer to a modified position within the outer surface voxel layer, to thereby generate respective transformed scan point sets containing the scan points at the modified positions; and output the transformed scan point sets. (Figure 3; 3.2 Localization methodology, “(2) the scanned point cloud is rotationally aligned with the coordinate axes of the global coordinate frame; (3) template matching is performed to find the coarse match between the scanned and the voxelized BIM point cloud; (4) the coarse registration is refined with ICP.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
683
1065
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Schaub does not explicitly disclose obtain multiple scan point sets, each set including a plurality of scan points that represent an outer surface of a target object;
Uhlenbrock more explicitly teaches obtain multiple scan point sets, each set including a plurality of scan points that represent an outer surface of a target object; (FIG.5, “Each of the multiple sets corresponds to a respective portion of a surface of an object and includes three-dimensional (3D) point positions of that portion of the surface of the object”).
PNG
media_image2.png
397
493
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As both Schaub and Uhlenbrock are from the same filed of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to include obtain multiple scan point sets, each set including a plurality of scan points that represent an outer surface of a target object; in the context of aligning laser scan data disclosed by Schaub according to the teachings of Uhlenbrock in order to combine the scan data accurately (see Col 1 Line 22 of Uhlenbrock).
Regarding claim 3, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 1, Schaub further discloses wherein for each scan point set, to compute the transformation matrix, the processor is configured to perform a fit error minimization operation. (see Final registration with ICP in 3.2 Localization methodology of Schaub, “The final fine registration is achieved with the ICP algorithm…. The number of iterations and the sub-sampling rate are the main ICP parameters that can be set in the configuration of the Localization component.”)
Regarding claim 7, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 1, Uhlenbrock further discloses wherein the scan points in each scan point set are defined by vectors originating from a scanning device origin for the scan point set and extending to respective positions of the scan points in three-dimensional space. (see FIG. 1 of Uhlenbrock; Col 1 Line 31-34 of Uhlenbrock, “Each of the multiple sets corresponds to a respective portion of a surface of an object and includes three-dimensional (3D) point positions of that portion of the surface of the object.”)
PNG
media_image3.png
583
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 7, Uhlenbrock further discloses wherein the scanning device origin for each scan point set is positioned at a respective location external to the target object. (see FIG. 1 of Uhlenbrock above. Note that the figure indicates the origin of 3D sensors (102, 103, 104) for each scan point set is positioned at a respective location external to the target object.)
Regarding claim 9, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 1, Uhlenbrock further discloses wherein the target object is an aircraft, rocket, spacecraft, or satellite. (see Col 7 Line 1, “As illustrated, the object 160 is a component of an aircraft”)
Regarding claim 10, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 1, Schaub further discloses wherein the transformed scan point sets are output to an application that is configured to assess a condition of the target object. (see ABSTRACT of Schaub, “approach for LiDAR scan localization in BIM that is based on a combination of SLAM tracking and point cloud to BIMregistration, embedded in a flexible system that can be used for Augmented Reality inspection of buildings or remote robot control”)
Regarding claim 12, the claim 12 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, the claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 3 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, the claim 18 is similar in scope to claim 7 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock, and further view of Farniok et al. (US 10591288 B2) (Hereinafter referred to as Farniok)
Regarding claim 11, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 10, however Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock fails to explicitly disclose wherein the condition is: whether the target object is built to manufacturing tolerance threshold; or whether the target object has experienced damage that exceeds a damage tolerance threshold. In a related endeavor, Farniok more explicitly teaches wherein the condition is: whether the target object is built to manufacturing tolerance threshold; or whether the target object has experienced damage that exceeds a damage tolerance threshold. (see Col 1 Line 17-21 of Farniok, “The measurements are compared to design tolerances (e.g., design tolerances indicated by 3D models or 2D blueprints) of the component. If the measurements are not within the design tolerances, the measurements are sent to structural engineers (who may be offsite) for analysis.”)
As Schaub, Uhlenbrock, and Farniok are from the same filed of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to include wherein the condition is: whether the target object is built to manufacturing tolerance threshold; or whether the target object has experienced damage that exceeds a damage tolerance threshold.in the context of aligning laser scan data disclosed by Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock according to the teachings of Farniok in order to decrease inspection and maintenance cycle time. (see Col3 Line 33-34 of Farniok)
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 appears to be a combination of claims 10 and 11, accordingly, claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale of claims 10 and 11.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock, and further view of Zhu et al. ("Exploring the Impact of Different Registration Methods and Noise Removal on the Registration Quality of Point Cloud Models in the Built Environment: A Case Study on Dickabrma Bridge." Buildings 13.9 (2023): 2365.) (Hereinafter referred to as Zhu)
Regarding Claim 2, Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock discloses all the limitation of claim 1, however Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock fails to explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to remove anomalies in each respective scan point set prior to computing each respective transformation matrix. In a related endeavor, Zhu more explicitly teaches wherein the processor is configured to remove anomalies in each respective scan point set prior to computing each respective transformation matrix. (see 2.2. Noise and Outlier Removal of Zhu, “Outliers are defined as points with exceptionally large error values, far exceeding systematic errors and caused by complex and special factors…. Outlier detection and removal in data has been extensively studied”)
As Schaub, Uhlenbrock, and Zhu are from the same filed of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to include wherein the processor is configured to remove anomalies in each respective scan point set prior to computing each respective transformation matrix in the context of aligning laser scan data disclosed by Schaub in view of Uhlenbrock according to the teachings of Zhu in order to enhance registration accuracy and decrease time consumption. (see Abstract of Zhu)
Regarding claim 13, the claim 13 is similar in scope to claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-6, 15-17, and 20 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 an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 4, prior art does not teach “wherein to accomplish the fit error minimization operation, the processor is configured to:
for each scan point set, iteratively:
determine a gradient vector between each scan point in the respective scan point set and a closest respective voxel in the outer surface voxel layer;
compute a candidate transformation matrix according to a parameter space search algorithm;
compute an alignment score for the respective scan point set based on the gradient vector for each of the
scan points in the respective scan point set; and
if the alignment score is within a permissible error threshold, cease iterating and output the candidate transformation matrix as the transformation matrix, else, continue iterating”, in combination with limitation recited in independent and intervening claims. .
Claims 5 and 6 are allowable as they depend on indicated allowable claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, prior art does not teach “wherein to accomplish the fit error minimization operation, the processor is configured to:
for each scan point set, iteratively:
determine a gradient vector between each scan point in the respective scan point set and a closest respective voxel in the outer surface voxel layer;
compute a candidate transformation matrix according to a parameter space search algorithm;
compute an alignment score for the respective scan point set based on the gradient vector for each of the
scan points in the respective scan point set; and
if the alignment score is within a permissible error threshold, cease iterating and output the candidate transformation matrix as the transformation matrix, else, continue iterating” in combination with limitation recited in independent and intervening claims. .
Claims 16 and 17 are allowable as they depend on indicated allowable claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, prior art does not teach “compute, via performing a fit error minimization operation, a respective transformation matrix for each of the scan point sets of scan points that fits the scan points in each set to positions within the outer surface voxel layer, wherein the fit error minimization operation computes an alignment score for the respective scan point set based on a gradient vector for each of the scan points in the respective scan point set” in combination with all other limitations recited in claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyorim Park whose telephone number is (571)272-3859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571) 272-3022. 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.
/Hyorim Park/ Examiner, Art Unit 2619
/JASON CHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619