ADETAILED 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 .
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 4/19/2026.
Claims 1-15, 17, 19, 24-26 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 17, 19 have been amended. Claims Claim 16, 18, 20-23 have been cancelled. Claim 24, 25, 26 are newly added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 3 of app 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same subject matters and limitations as explained below.
Claim 1 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 1 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claims 1
17/863,625 claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving,
by a computing device,
scanning data resulting from a scan by a scanner through packaging of a first object contained within the packaging,
the scanner located outside of the packaging,
the scan performed by the scanner through the packaging of the first object contained within the packaging;
1. A method implemented by at least one computing device,
the method comprising:
receiving,
by the at least one computing device,
scanning data resulting from a scan by a scanner of a physical object contained within packaging,
the scanner disposed out of the packaging,
the scan performed by the scanner through the packaging to the physical object disposed within the packaging;
generating,
by the computing device,
an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object based on the scanning data received;
generating,
by the at least one computing device,
an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the physical object based on the received scanning data;
receiving, by the computing device, a two-dimensional digital image
depicting a second object, in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the first object contained within the packaging;
generating, by the computing device, mapped feature data by detecting
features of the second object and corresponding features of the first object contained within the packaging;
based on the mapped feature data, modifying, by the computing device, the
uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object;
detecting,
by the at least one computing device,
features of a digital image that correspond to features of the uncolored three-dimensional digital model;
generating,
by the at least one computing device,
color for the uncolored three-dimensional digital model based on the detecting without removing the physical object contained within the packaging from the packaging;
and outputting,
by the computing device,
and outputting,
by the at least one computing device,
the uncolored three-dimensional digital model via a user interface without removing the first object contained within the packaging from the packaging.
the colored three-dimensional digital model via a user interface without removing the physical object contained within the packaging from the packaging.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, Claim 1 of both 17/863,625 and Instant application (18,747/915) discloses “receiving, by a computing device, scanning data resulting from a scan by a scanner through packaging of an object contained within the packaging, the scanner located outside of the packaging, the scan performed by the scanner through the packaging of the object contained within the packaging;” and “generating, by the computing device, an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the object based on the scanning data received;”. While Claim 1 of instant application (18,747/915) discloses additional limitation “ receiving, by the computing device, a two-dimensional digital image depicting a second object, in which the second object is same or similar to the object contained within the packaging; generating, by the computing device, mapped feature data by detecting features of the second object and corresponding features of the object contained within the packaging; based on the mapped feature data, modifying, by the computing device, the uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the object”. It is not identical as Claim 1 of 17/863,625, however, prior art Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1) teaches in those limitations. Whitmarsh and Claim 1 of 17/863,625 are analogous since both of them are dealing with directed to generating and refining a three-dimensional representation of an object based on image data. Claim 1 of 17/863,625 provided a way of scanning techniques that employed by a scanning system that scans a physical object while disposed within packaging to form a three dimension digital model, then use the feature of modelling to align a viewing perspective with respect to the model with a viewing perspective of the object within the digital image, Whitmarsh provided a way of receiving two-dimensional images of an object, determining correspondence of features/landmarks between images, and using that correspondence to generate and update a three-dimensional model. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Whitmarsh’ feature/landmark correspondence mapping and model updating technique into the modified invention of Claim 1 of 17/863,625 such that, after generating the three-dimensional digital model from scan data, the system further uses a two-dimensional image of a same or similar object to generate mapped feature data and modify the generated three-dimensional model accordingly. Therefore, Claim 1 of 17/863,625 with Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1) discloses all limitations of instant application (18,747/915) claim 1.
Claim 2 is determined to be obvious in light of claim 2 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application claims 2
17/863,625 claim 2
2. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the scan is an X-ray scan.
2. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the scan is an X-ray scan.
Claim 3 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 3 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 3
17/863,625 Claim 3
3. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the uncolored three-dimensional digital model represents the first object without the packaging.
3. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the colored three-dimensional digital model represents the physical object without the packaging.
Claim 4 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 4 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 4
17/863,625 Claim 4
4. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the first object has a density that is greater than a density of the packaging.
4. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the physical object has a density that is greater than a density of the packaging.
Claim 8 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 6 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 8
17/863,625 Claim 6
8. The method as described in claim 7, wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on detecting a different portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as corresponding to the at least one portion.
6. The method as described in claim 5, wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on detecting a different portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as corresponding to the at least one portion.
Claim 9 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 8 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 9
17/863,625 Claim 8
9. The method as described in claim 7, wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on stretching color from another portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as supplying the color for the at least one portion.
8. The method as described in claim 5, wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on stretching color from another portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as supplying the color for the at least one portion.
Claim 10 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 9 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 10
17/863,625 Claim 9
10. The method as described in claim 6, wherein the generating of the color includes linear blend skinning of the two dimensional digital image to the uncolored three-dimensional digital model.
9. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the generating includes linear blend skinning of the digital image to the uncolored three-dimensional digital model.
Claim 12 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 11 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 12
17/863,625 Claim 11
12. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising generating, by the computing device, a search query based on the uncolored three-dimensional digital model.
11. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising generating a search query based on the colored three-dimensional digital model
and wherein the digital image is a search result resulting from a search performed based on the search query.
Claim 13 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 12 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 13
17/863,625 Claim 12
13. The method as described in claim 6, further comprising generating digital content as including the colored three-dimensional digital model.
12. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising generating digital content as including the colored three-dimensional digital model
and functionality that is user selectable to initiate a purchase of the physical object from a user.
Claim 14 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 14 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 14
17/863,625 Claim 14
14. The method as described in claim 13, wherein the digital content is a webpage.
14. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising generating digital content as a webpage
that includes the colored three-dimensional digital model.
Claim 15 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 15 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 15
17/863,625 Claim 15
15. A system comprising: a memory component; and a processing device coupled to the memory component, the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving scanning data resulting from a scan by a scanner through packaging of a first object contained within the packaging, the scanner located outside of the packaging, the scan performed by the scanner through the packaging of the first object contained within the packaging; generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object based on the scanning data received;
15. A system comprising: a three-dimensional scanning device disposed out of packaging and a physical object disposed within the packaging, the three-dimensional scanning device configured to generate an uncolored three-dimensional digital model by scanning the physical object disposed within the packaging, the scanning of the physical object performed through the packaging; and a model coloring system implemented at least partially in hardware of a computing device to color the uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the physical object using a two-dimensional digital image of the physical object without removing the physical object disposed within the packaging from the packaging.
receiving a two-dimensional digital image depicting a second object,
in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the first object contained within the packaging;
generating mapped feature data by detecting features of the second
object and corresponding features of the first object contained within the
packaging;
based on the mapped feature data, modifying the uncolored three-dimensional
digital model of the first object;
and outputting the uncolored three-dimensional digital model via a user interface without removing the first object contained within the packaging from the packaging.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. With the same reason specified in Claim 1. Claim 15 of 17/863,625 with Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1) discloses all limitations of instant application (18,747/915) claim 15.
Claim 17 is determined to be obvious in light of Claim 3 of 17/863,625 (now is US patent US 12045944 B2) based on reasons below for having similar limitations.
Instant application Claim 17
17/863,625 Claim 3
17. The system as described in claim 15, wherein the uncolored three-dimensional digital model represents the first object without the packaging.
3. The method as described in claim 1, wherein the colored three-dimensional digital model represents the physical object without the packaging.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 13-15, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybill et al. (US 9686481 B1, hereinafter Graybill) in view of Ikits (US 9443346 B2), further in view of Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1, hereinafter Whitmarsh).
Regarding Claim 15, Graybill teaches a system (Graybill, Fig. 2, Element 200 system) comprising: a memory component (Graybill, Fig. 2, Element 246 Memory);
and a processing device coupled to the memory component (Graybill, Fig.2 Element 244 Processor is coupled to Element 244 Meory), the processing device to perform operations comprising: receiving scanning data resulting from a scan by a scanner through packaging of a first object contained within the packaging (Graybill, Column 3, Line 1-15, The fulfillment center 110 includes an X-ray imaging scanner 120 and a sensor 126…such images may be subjected to one or more radiographic analyses to identify the contents of the container 10, including the items actually included within the container 10), the scanner located outside of the packaging (Graybill, Fig. 1A, Scanner 120 is located outside the Element 10 Container),
the scan performed by the scanner through the packaging of the first object contained within the packaging (Graybill, Column 12, Line 31-35, “the contents of a sealed container may be evaluated by capturing one or more X-ray images of the container, and performing one or more radiographic analyses on the captured images to determine the amount, share or portion of the contents thereof which include items, dunnage and/or air, as well as the condition of such contents; Column 8, Line 50-51, operatively or functionally joined with the computer 210, the X-ray scanner 220); generating an [[ uncolored ]] three-dimensional digital model of the first object based on the scanning data received (Graybill, Column 4, Line 40-45, X-ray computed tomographic techniques may now use computers to generate “slices,” or parallel images of portions of a three-dimensional scanned object); receiving a two-dimensional digital image depicting a second object (Graybill, Column 5, Line 32-35, “outlines of objects <read on first and second object> may be identified in a digital X-ray image according to any number of visual analyses, algorithms or machine-learning tools”), [[ in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the first object contained within the packaging; ]] [[ generating mapped feature data by ]] detecting features of the second object [[ and corresponding features of the object ]] contained within the packaging; (Graybill, Column 5, Line 25-28, “textures of features or objects expressed in a digital X-ray image may be identified using one or more computer-based visual analyses”) [[ based on the mapped feature data, modifying the uncolored three dimensional digital model of the first object; ]] and outputting the [[ uncolored ]] three-dimensional digital model via a user interface without removing the first object contained within the packaging from the packaging (Graybill, Column 3, Line 22-25, “The user interface 126 also includes information regarding the container 10 and its contents, which may be obtained through one or more analyses of the image 120A”; Abstract, “X-ray imaging, may be used to identify information regarding the contents of a container or other sealed object without having to open the container or the sealed object”).
But, Graybill does not explicitly the image is uncolored and in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the object contained within the packaging; generating mapped feature data [[ by detecting features of the second object and ]] corresponding features [[ of the first object contained within the packaging;]] based on the mapped feature data [[ , modifying the uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object ]].
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object based on the scanning data received (Ikits, Column 2, Line 53-57, “retrieving a three-dimensional bone model corresponding to a portion of the anatomy stored in the memory, associating the three-dimensional bone model with the three-dimensional image data such that the three-dimensional bone model” Column 4, Line 26-30, 65-67, System 100 may receive such information from a user via an input/output (I/O) interface…The systems and methods described herein may generally create interactive high-quality virtual radiographs, also referred to herein as x-ray images; Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings <read on uncolored>). [[ in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the first object contained within the packaging; generating mapped feature data by detecting features of the second object and corresponding features of the first object contained within the packaging;
based on the mapped feature data, modifying the uncolored three dimensional
digital model of the first object.]] and outputting the uncolored three-dimensional digital model (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “Attenuation model module 114 may generally be configured to indicate such a feature in an x-ray image output by system 100, and color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings for the image for display”; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
Ikits and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with processing and visualizing x-ray based scan data to enable user understanding of internal object structure. Graybill provided a way of capturing X-ray scan data through scaled packging and presenting the resulting information via a user interface and/or augmented reality device to inform users about container contents. Ikits provided a way of producing and modulating grayscale x-ray images derived from 3D imaging data, including attenuation models and grayscale control modules for emphasizing key anatomical features. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the grayscale modulation techniques taught by Ikits into modified invention of Graybill to enable dynamic adjustment of image contrast and coloration when presenting scan-derived digital models. The motivation for doing so is to enhance visual clarity and user focus during review of internal object structures in scanned containers, particularly when rendering 3D model data that may include overlapping densities or mixed materials. Adjusting grayscale intensity can reduce visual distraction and improve interpretation of x-ray based imagery across different rendering platforms.
But the combination does not explicitly disclose in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the object contained within the packaging; generating mapped feature data [[ by detecting features of the second object and ]] corresponding features [[ of the first object contained within the packaging;]] based on the mapped feature data [[ , modifying the uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object ]].
However, Whitmarsh teaches receiving a two-dimensional digital image depicting a second object (Whitmarsh, Paragraph [0014], “The database(s) 142 may include models for a plurality of 3D objects, which may have been developed, for instance, by the manufacturers of the 3D objects, users who have previously scanned full versions of the 3D objects and have uploaded digital representations of the 3D objects, etc”) , in which the second object is distinct from and similar to the first object [[ contained within the packaging ]] (Whitmarsh, Paragraph [0029], “the hardware processor(s) 210 and/or cores may determine that some or all of the first set of candidate models pertain to a particular type of object. For instance, the hardware processor(s) 210 and/or core(s) may determine that a majority of the models in the first set of candidate models pertain to trophies. In one regard, therefore, the general identity of the 3D object may include a class or type of the object, but may not include the exact identity of the object”; [0030], “a particular area of the 3D object provides a maximum distinction <read on distinct from> between the objects in a particular class of objects <read on similar to>");
generating mapped feature data by detecting features of the second object and corresponding features of the first object contained within the packaging (Whitmarsh, Paragraph [0027], "build a coarse descriptive data file <read on mapped feature data> corresponding to the first scanned image and may employ a search engine to search for models, e.g., matching 3D design files <read on detecting features of the second object>, that match the 3D object 112 <read on corresponding features of the first object> using the coarse descriptive data file");
based on the mapped feature data, modifying the [[ uncolored ]] three dimensional
digital model of the first object (Whitmarsh, Paragraph [0007], "the high resolution digital model of the 3D object <read on three-dimensional digital model> may be used as a basis for further digital design and modification <read on modifying> of a 3D object"; ¶[0039], "the matching model may be stored in the data store 212 to enable a user to make modifications to the matching model <read on modifying the three-dimensional digital model based on the mapped feature data>");
Whitmarsh and Graybill are analogous since both are directed to generating and processing a three-dimensional representation of an object based on scanned image data. Graybill provides a way of scanning an object through packaging and generating a three-dimensional digital model of the object without removing it from the packaging. Whitmarsh provides a way of receiving scanned images of an object, building a coarse descriptive data file from the scanned images, searching a database of digital representations of a plurality of similar objects to identify a matching model based on feature correspondence, and using the matching model as a basis for further modification of the three-dimensional digital model of the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Whitmarsh's feature-based object recognition and model modification technique into the modified invention of Graybill such that, after generating the three-dimensional digital model from scan data obtained through packaging, the system further uses a digital representation of a distinct but similar object from a database to generate mapped feature data and modify the generated three-dimensional model accordingly.
Regarding Claim 1, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 15 but as a method and the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches all the limitations as of Claim 15. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the scan is an X-ray scan (Graybill, Column 3, Line 3-5, “the X-ray scanner 120 is configured to capture one or more X-ray images of the container 10”) .
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the [[ uncolored ]] three-dimensional digital model represents the first object without the packaging (Graybill, Column 4, Line 40-45, X-ray computed tomographic techniques may now use computers to generate “slices,” or parallel images of portions of a three-dimensional scanned object).
But, Graybill does not explicitly the image is uncolored.
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the first object has a density that is greater than a density of the packaging (Graybill, Column 13, Line 40-52, the colors (e.g., the brightness or darkness) of objects expressed within an X-ray image is a function of the relative radiolucence and/or radiopacity of the objects, which is typically a function of the densities of the objects. Therefore, one or more colorimetric or other visual analyses of the X-ray images may be performed in order to recognize the portions of the image that correspond to items… the system may determine a number of items, the orientations of such items, as well as a condition of the items within the container; it is noted since the object is identified by density, therefore, those identified objects has higher density than the container itself).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches further comprising generating, by the computing device, digital content including the [[ uncolored ]] three-dimensional digital model (Graybill, Column 4, Line 40-45, X-ray computed tomographic techniques may now use computers to generate “slices,” or parallel images of portions of a three-dimensional scanned object).
But, Graybill does not explicitly the image is uncolored.
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the object (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches further comprising:
generating, by the computing device, color for the [[ uncolored ]] three-dimensional digital model based on the mapped feature data; (Graybill, Column 4, Line 57-62, analysts of images generated by … multiple X-ray images of an object may be captured from different perspectives … such systems to detect components of the object within such images…Column 8, Line 45-47, The projector 224 may be configured to generate and project full color single images, such as a digital X-ray image, or, alternatively, full motion video images);
and outputting, by the computing device, a colored three-dimensional digital model via a user interface without removing the first object contained within the packaging from the packaging (Graybill, Abstract, “X-ray imaging, may be used to identify information regarding the contents of a container or other sealed object without having to open the container or the sealed object”; Column 8, Line 8-15, “The reflected light within visible RGB bands may be as outputted from the first spectral band pixel diode detector array can be coupled to an image processor, which may generate an image output that may be displayed on a computer display or outputted to a hard copy medium, and associated with an object”).
But, Graybill does not explicitly the image is uncolored.
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the first object (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches wherein the generating includes: generating an initially colored three-dimensional digital model including colored features that correspond to features of the two-dimensional digital image (Graybill, Column 4, Line 44-46, “generate “slices,” or parallel images of portions of a three-dimensional scanned object.” Column 5, Line 21-45, colors of pixels, or of groups of pixels, in a digital X-ray image may be determined and quantified according to one or more standards, e.g., the RGB (“red-green-blue”) color model… the systems and methods disclosed herein are not limited to any one means or method for generating X-ray images);
But, Graybill does not explicitly generating color for at least one portion of the uncolored three-dimensional digital model that is not colored in the initially colored three-dimensional digital model to form the colored three-dimensional digital model generated.
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the object (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 6, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 6.
The combination further teaches further comprising generating digital content as including the colored three-dimensional digital model (Graybill, Column 4, Line 57-62, analysts of images generated by … multiple X-ray images of an object may be captured from different perspectives. Column 8, Line 45-47, The projector 224 may be configured to generate and project full color single images, such as a digital X-ray image, or, alternatively, full motion video images).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 13.
The combination further teaches wherein the digital content is a webpage (Graybill, Column 11, Line 29-33, The fulfillment center 210, the worker 230, the glasses 240 and/or the external user 260 may use any web-enabled 30 or Internet applications or features, or any other client-server applications).
Regarding Claim 17, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 3 and therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of claim 1 and the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. And Graybill discloses these features can be implemented on a computer readable storage medium (Graybill, Column 12, Line 7-15 Some embodiments of the systems and methods of the present disclosure may also be provided as a computer executable program product including a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that may be used to program a computer to perform processes or methods described herein).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybill et al. (US 9686481 B1, hereinafter Graybill) in view of Ikits (US 9443346 B2), further in view of Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1, hereinafter Whitmarsh) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Huang et al. (US-20160012646-A 1, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 7.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Huang teaches wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on detecting a different portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as corresponding to the at least one portion (Huang, Fig. 2N, Step 305, Paragraph [0091 ], "matching, based on 3D structure, a portion of the first 30 distribution of colored points, to a portion of the second 30 distribution of colored points").
Huang and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with 3D modeling. Graybill provided a way of scanning the object inside container using x-ray in augmented reality. Huang provided a way of coloring the 3D modeling based on the alignment of 2D image interactively for regions of image not colored. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate interactive coloring of images taught by Huang into modified invention of Graybill such that when creating the 3D modeling, system will be able to dynamically coloring uncolored imager by comparing with the image in order to colored the 3D images completely.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 7.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Huang teaches wherein the generating of the color for the at least one portion that is not colored is based on stretching color from another portion of the initially colored three-dimensional digital model as supplying the color for the at least one portion (Huang, Fig. 2N, Step 305, Paragraph [0091], "matching, based on 3D structure, a portion of the first 30 distribution of colored points, to a portion of the second 30 distribution of colored points"}.
Huang and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with 3D modeling. Graybill provided a way of scanning the object inside container using x-ray in augmented reality. Huang provided a way of coloring the 3D modeling based on the alignment of 2D image interactively for regions of image not colored. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate interactive coloring of images taught by Huang into modified invention of Graybill such that when creating the 3D modeling, system will be able to dynamically coloring uncolored imager by comparing with the image in order to colored the 3D images completely.
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 6.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Huang teaches wherein the generating of the color includes stretching a portion of the two-dimensional digital image and compressing another portion of the two-dimensional digital image as to align a perspective of the uncolored three-dimensional digital model to a perspective of the second object depicted in the two-dimensional digital image (Huang, Paragraph [0080], "the model post-processing may include model or mesh compression" Fig. 2N, Step 305, Paragraph [0091], "matching, based on 3D structure, a portion of the first 30 distribution of colored points, to a portion of the second 30 distribution of colored points; [0007], In certain embodiments, the processor may minimize an alignment energy between the first 3D distribution of colored points and the second 3D distribution of colored points; [0064], the image may include a two-dimensional (2D} array of pixels, and a third dimension corresponding to depth values associated with the pixels). Huang and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with 3D modeling. Graybill provided a way of scanning the object inside container using x-ray in augmented reality. Huang provided a way of compression during the 3D modelling process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate compression taught by Huang into modified invention of Graybill such that when creating the 3D modeling, system will be able to use compression process and may reduce and/or simplify mesh data for transmission and/or storage.
Claim(s) 10 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybill et al. (US 9686481 B1, hereinafter Graybill) in view of Ikits (US 9443346 B2), further in view of Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1, hereinafter Whitmarsh) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kanaujia et al. (US 20130250050 A1, hereinafter Kanaujia).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 6.
The combination further teaches wherein the generating of the color includes [[ linear blend skinning ]] of the two-dimensional digital image to the uncolored three-dimensional digital model and outputting the uncolored three-dimensional digital model (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “Attenuation model module 114 may generally be configured to indicate such a feature in an x-ray image output by system 100, and color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings for the image for display”; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 6, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose linear blend skinning.
But, Kanaujia teaches wherein the generating of the color includes linear blend skinning of the two-dimensional digital image to the uncolored three-dimensional digital model (Kanaujia, Paragraph [0090], [0105], [0117], "the initial pose hypotheses are refined. This may include generation of a coarse 3D human shape model for each pose and comparing the same to the extracted 3D visual hull obtained in step 5103" "2D shapes of the silhouette are used in discriminative 3D pose prediction" "Linear Blend Skinning (LBS} may be used for efficient non-rigid deformation of skin as a function of an underlying skeleton"}.
Kanaujia and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with 3D modeling. Graybill provided a way of scanning the object inside container using x-ray in augmented reality. Kanaujia provided a way of using linear blend skinning function whiling creating the 3D modeling image. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate linear blend skinning taught by Kanaujia into modified invention of Graybill such that when creating the 3D modeling, system will be able to use Linear Blend Skinning function dynamically and accurately linearly regression map between the 2D image and 3D image.
Claim(s) 12 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybill et al. (US 9686481 B1, hereinafter Graybill) in view of Ikits (US 9443346 B2), further in view of Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1, hereinafter Whitmarsh) as applied to Claim 1, 15 above respectively and further in view of Harp et al. US 20150186418 A1, hereinafter Harp)
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh teaches the invention in Claim 6.
The combination further teaches further comprising generating, by the computing device, [[ a search query based on ]] the uncolored three-dimensional digital model
However, Ikits teaches generating an uncolored three-dimensional digital model of the object (Ikits, Column 5, Line 34-39, “color module 116 may be configured to provide grayscale color settings; it is noted by adjusting the grayscale color can set to uncolored image).
As explained in rejection of claim 1, the obviousness for combining of uncovered image of Ikits into Graybill is provided above.
However, the combination does not explicitly disclose a search query.
But , Harp teaches generating, by the computing device, a search query based on the uncolored three-dimensional digital model (Harp, Paragraph [0002], a given object may be scanned from a number of different angles, and the scanned images can be combined to generate the 3D image of the object. [0004], The method further comprises identifying a 3D model that corresponds to the object indicated by the search query from within a database of three-dimensional (3D) object data models).
Harp and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with 3D modeling. Graybill provided a way of scanning the object inside container using x-ray in augmented reality. Harp provided a way for user to search before scanning and generating the image during the 3D modelling process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate searching query taught by Harp into modified invention of Graybill such that when creating the 3D modeling, system will be able to create the image based on user search query result which provide more user friendly and to create customized data closer to user requirement.
Claim(s) 24 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Graybill et al. (US 9686481 B1, hereinafter Graybill) in view of Ikits (US 9443346 B2), further in view of Whitmarsh et al. (US 20180321658 A1, hereinafter Whitmarsh) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Babushkin (US 20180314698 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Graybill, Ikits, and Whitmarsh teaches the method as described in claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Babushkin teaches
wherein the detecting of the features of the second object and the corresponding features of the first object [[ contained within the packaging ]] includes blob detection (Babushkin, Paragraph [0050], "the object search application 709 may use various feature detection approaches such as edge detection, corner detection, blob detection <read on includes blob detection>, ridge detection, affine invariant feature detection, or similar approaches to identify a collection of features that define an object"; Paragraph [0051], "the object search application 709 determines whether the collection of features of an object 113 in the first media file 736 matches a collection of features of a known object 113 <read on detecting features of the second object and the corresponding features of the first object>").
Babushkin and Graybill are analogous since both of them are dealing with identifying and matching objects based on detected features from image data. Graybill provided a way of scanning an object through packaging and detecting features of the object for identification purposes. Babushkin provided a way of using various computer vision feature detection techniques, including blob detection, to identify a collection of features that define an object and matching those features against features of a known object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the blob detection technique taught by Babushkin into the modified invention of Graybill such that the detecting of features of the second object and corresponding features of the first object includes blob detection. The motivation for doing so is to leverage well-known feature detection approaches to more reliably identify a collection of features that define an object, as discussed by Babushkin in Paragraph [0050].
Response to Arguments
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 under Nonstatutory Double Patenting sustained until Applicant filed eTerminal/Terminal Disclaimer.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1, 15, 19, filed on 4/19/2026., with respect to rejection under 35 USC § 103 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. It has now been taught by the combination of Graybill, Ikits and Whitmarsh.
In regard to Claims 2-14, 17they directly/indirectly depends on independent Claim 1, 15 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than the independent claim 1, 15. The limitations in those claims in conjunction with combination previously established as explained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25 and 26 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 25, the prior art of record, specifically Graybill teaches scanning an object through packaging and detecting features of the object, the prior art Ikits teaches grayscale modulation for x-ray based imaging, the prior art Whitmarsh teaches feature-based matching between a scanned object and a database of similar objects using a coarse descriptive data file, and the prior art Babushkin teaches blob detection as a feature detection technique for identifying and matching objects. However, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides motivation to teach wherein the blob detection detects one or more blobs of the second object corresponding to one or more regions of structure included in the two-dimensional digital image, and detects one or more corresponding blobs of the first object corresponding to one or more corresponding regions of the first object.
Regarding claim 26, it depends from claim 25 and is allowable for at least the reasons stated above with respect to claim 25. Additionally, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides motivation to teach wherein the mapped feature data includes correspondence between the one or more blobs of the second object and the one or more corresponding blobs of the first object.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180047193 A1 Adaptive bounding box merge method in blob analysis for video analytics
US 10521515 B2 Object recognition for 3D printing
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 YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571)272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights