DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 1-7 are to a process, claims 8-14 are to a machine, and claims 15-20 are to an article of manufacture. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claims contain at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device;
dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and a remainder of points that are not behind the modeled reflective surface;
generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded;
registering the mirrored points to the rest of the points in the point cloud;
identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the remainder of points in the point cloud;
calculating a set of points that describes an actual reflective surface from the mirrored points having been registered and the virtual points corresponding thereto using the law of reflection; and
updating parameters for the modeled reflective surface from the set of points that describes the actual reflective surface, thereby providing an accurate position and shape for the reflective surface in the point cloud.
8. A system comprising:
a memory having computer readable instructions; and at least one processor for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device;
dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising (i) virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and (ii) a remainder of points;
generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded;
registering the mirrored points to the remainder of points in the point cloud;
identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the remainder of points in the point cloud; calculating a set of points that describes an actual reflective surface from the mirrored points having been registered and the virtual points corresponding thereto using the law of reflection; and
updating parameters for the modeled reflective surface from the set of points that describes the actual reflective surface, thereby providing an accurate position and shape for the reflective surface in the point cloud.
15. A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device;
dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and a remainder of points;
generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded;
registering the mirrored points to the remainder of points in the point cloud;
identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the rest of the points in the point cloud; calculating a set of points that describes an actual reflective surface from the mirrored points having been registered and the virtual points corresponding thereto using the law of reflection; and
updating parameters for the modeled reflective surface from the set of points that describes the actual reflective surface, thereby providing an accurate position and shape for the reflective surface in the point cloud.
It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.). Thus the limitations starting from “dividing the point cloud” and ending with “updating parameters for the modeled reflective surface” describe a sequence of mathematical geometrical processing steps as part of an overall mathematical algorithm. In other words, point cloud numerical coordinate “data” is mathematically manipulated in order to solve for updated “parameters” of a modeled reflective surface. The limitation of “identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the rest of the points in the point cloud” can be performed as a mental process by a person on pen and paper, or as a mathematical concept if the calculations for determining alignment require more advanced geometrical processing. The analysis of the EPG Court is particularly applicable to the claims in the present case: "Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," (see Electronic Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) at pg. 7). Similarly, the claims here describe an analysis of data points located in coordinate space that are mathematically modeled to solve for an informational-based position and shape for a reflective surface, where such an analysis is confined within the realm of an abstract idea.
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claims are analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the recitations for “a computer-implemented method,” “a memory having computer readable instructions; and at least one processor for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the at least one processor to perform operations”, and “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform operations,” amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (2) the recitations of “receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device” amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claims are considered to determine if they recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. The limitations for “a computer-implemented method,” “a memory having computer readable instructions; and at least one processor for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the at least one processor to perform operations”, and “a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform operations,” do not add something significantly more, because they amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely using a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations of “receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device” do not add significantly more because they amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and do not describe any data gathering in an unconventional way or using a particular physical arrangement.
Dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, and 16-20 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of mental processes or mathematical concepts to describe additional data analysis and calculation steps of the overall algorithm. Dependent claims 7 and 14 amount to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), as the use of an existing trained AI model is just the action of using a function which takes input parameters and returns output parameters.
3. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), and while details of the abstract idea may be sufficient to overcome prior art rejections, they may not be sufficient to overcome subject-matter eligibility rejections. There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular nonconventional physical arrangements for actively obtaining the measurement point cloud data, or further physical application (not including extrasolution data-based output or displaying) using the position and shape of the reflective surface to drive a further physical transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process, could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
4. 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 15-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding the terms "computer readable storage medium" in claim 15, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium, as presented in the claim, covers both forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. See 1351 OG 212, Feb 23 2010.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant replaces “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium” in claim 15 with " A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium."
5. Dependent claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and are rejected for at least the same reasons as given for claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regards to claim 1, the closest prior art, Wohlfeld et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0153967) at least teaches a computer-implemented method (Wohlfeld paragraph [0016] teaches a computer-implemented method) comprising:
receiving an initial location for a modeled reflective surface in a point cloud of an environment and information from which coordinates of points of the point cloud were captured by a device (Wohlfeld abstract and paragraph [0016] teach receiving a modeled initial location of a reflective surface from a machine learning model analyzing a subset of pixels from a 2D image, and also receiving the corresponding 3D scan points in the point cloud captured by a 3D scanner; Wohlfeld paragraph [0040] teach where the scan points have 3D coordinates representing their location in a scene).7. However, claim 1 contains allowable subject matter because the closet prior art, Wohfeld et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0153967) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer-implemented method comprising: dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and a remainder of points that are not behind the modeled reflective surface; generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded; registering the mirrored points to the rest of the points in the point cloud; identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the remainder of points in the point cloud, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. The prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest dividing the point cloud into virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface and a remainder of points that are not behind the modeled reflective surface, and the subsequent processing that occurs on such points based on this division.
Similarly, claim 8 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wohlfeld et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0153967) fails to anticipate or render obvious a system comprising: computer readable instructions controlling the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising (i) virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and (ii) a remainder of points; generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded; registering the mirrored points to the remainder of points in the point cloud; identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the remainder of points in the point cloud; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
Similarly, claim 15 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Wohlfeld et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0153967) fails to anticipate or render obvious a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: dividing the point cloud into two parts comprising virtual points that are behind the modeled reflective surface with respect to a position from where the points were recorded, and a remainder of points; generating mirrored points by applying a law of reflection to the virtual points with respect to the modeled reflective surface and the position from where the points were recorded; registering the mirrored points to the remainder of points in the point cloud; identifying and removing the mirrored points that do not align with the rest of the points in the point cloud; in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant.
8. Dependent claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 1. Dependent claims 9-14 depend from claim 8 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 8. Dependent claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 15.
Pertinent Art
9. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Steedly et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0244062) discloses Using Photo Collections for Three Dimensional Modeling.
C. Kulkarni et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2019/0266779) discloses Analysis of Point Cloud Data Using Polar Depth Maps and Planarization Techniques.
D. Becker et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0010799) discloses Real-Time Scan Point Homogenization for Terrestrial Laser Scanner.
E. Hu et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0135965) discloses Virtual Beams for Identification of Edge and Planar Points in Lidar Point Cloud Obtained with Vehicle Lidar System.
F. Wang et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2023/0182774) discloses Autonomous Driving Lidar Technology.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 9/5/2026
Prosecution Insights