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 .
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowable over the prior art of record since the cited references taken individually or in combination fails to particularly disclose or suggest a method, comprising: S7, performing geometric primitive half-plane search based on the three-dimensional structural lines, and determining whether point clouds on both sides of each three-dimensional structural line satisfy a constraint of a regular surface, if so, performing geometric primitive neighborhood expansion according to a greedy algorithm, and determining a maximum regular area; and S8, fusing the determined maximum regular area with a point cloud set to construct structural map data, as presented in the environment of the remaining limitations of claim 1. It is noted that the closest prior art, Jakka et al. (US Pub. 2021/0279852), hereinafter Jakka, shows S1, acquiring, by a sensor based on vision and three-dimensional depth perception, multi-modal perception information of a target scene, wherein the multi-modal perception information comprises a Red-Green-Blue (RGB) visual image and depth perception information, and the depth perception information comprises an ordered point cloud and a disordered point cloud; S3, performing visual feature extraction on the visual image through an image feature extraction module; S5, preprocessing the ordered point cloud and the disordered point cloud in the depth perception information, and associating two-dimensional structural lines in the structural semantic line set with pixels of the visual image by indexing structural semantic line segments of the ordered point cloud and the disordered point cloud and passed pixels, to obtain an association relationship between the two-dimensional structural lines and three-dimensional points; S6, performing three-dimensional space fitting on the two-dimensional structural lines based on the association relationship between the two-dimensional structural lines and the three-dimensional points, to obtain three-dimensional structural lines. However, Jakka fails to disclose or suggest S2, acquiring a regular parameterized line set of the visual image through an Ellipse and Line Segment Detector with Continuous validation (ELSDc), and embedding and encoding line segments and ellipse arcs in the regular parameterized line set to obtain an embedding vector with a length of 256 dimensions; S4, inputting the embedding vector and visual features into a trained parameterized line discrimination network model to obtain a structural semantic line set; S7, performing geometric primitive half-plane search based on the three-dimensional structural lines, and determining whether point clouds on both sides of each three-dimensional structural line satisfy a constraint of a regular surface, if so, performing geometric primitive neighborhood expansion according to a greedy algorithm, and determining a maximum regular area; and S8, fusing the determined maximum regular area with a point cloud set to construct structural map data.
Dependent claims 2-8 depend from one of the above independent claims, either directly or indirectly, and are accordingly allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: ‘an acquisition module,’ ‘an embedding and encoding module,’ ‘a feature extraction module,’ ‘a discrimination module,’ ‘an association module,’ ‘a fitting module,’ ‘a search module,’ and ‘a fusion module’ in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: ‘a feature extraction module,’ ‘a discrimination module,’ ‘an association module,’ ‘a fitting module,’ ‘a search module,’ and ‘a fusion module.’ These modules from claim 9 are not preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device, nor are they otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D SALVUCCI whose telephone number is (571)270-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:30-4:00PT.
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, XIAO WU can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/MATTHEW SALVUCCI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613