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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on July 22, 2024 (3) have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially createddoctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent theunjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patentand to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutoryobviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claimsare not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinctfrom the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipatedby, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.1985); In re Van Omum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163USPQ 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 a nonstatutorydouble patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown tobe commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result ofactivities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign aterminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent 12,073,574. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as 12,073,574 anticipates the present application.
Please see table below for independent claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 8 and 15):
18/780,168
12,073,574
Claim Interpretation
A method comprising: determining a respective
mapping between a
plurality of viewpoints of a vehicle and a vehicle model representing the vehicle, each mapping identifying a location
on the vehicle model corresponding with a portion of the vehicle captured in the respective viewpoint; automatically detecting, using artificial intelligence, defects associated with the vehicle; creating a plurality of defect identifiers for the vehicle model based on the mappings, each defect identifier linking one or more of the viewpoints to a respective one of the locations
on the vehicle model,
the defect identifiers comprising information describing the defects; and
providing for presentation on a display screen a user interface
that includes the vehicle model and the defect identifiers, the user interface presenting information related to a selected defect when a designated
defect identifier corresponding with the selected defect is selected in the vehicle model.
1. A method comprising: determining a respective mapping between each of a plurality of viewpoints of a vehicle and a vehicle model representing the vehicle, each mapping identifying a location
on the vehicle model corresponding with a portion of the vehicle captured in the respective viewpoint; automatically detecting, using artificial intelligence, defects associated with the vehicle; creating a plurality of tags
for the vehicle model
based on the mappings, each
tag linking one or
more of the viewpoints to a respective one of the locations on the vehicle model,
one or more of the tags corresponding to the
defects; and
providing for presentation on a display screen a user interface that includes the vehicle model and the tags, the
user interface presenting a designated one of the plurality of viewpoints when a designated tag corresponding with the designated viewpoint is selected in the vehicle model.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, 18/780,168 is anticipated by US 12,073,574. More specifically, there are only slight word variations including the present application changing “tags” to “defect identifiers”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that “tag” and “identifier” are used interchangeably.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obvious-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17 and 20 of U.S. Patent 11,776,142 in view of Knuffman et al. (US Patent 10,497,108, Knuffman) in view of Kostyk et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0162257 A1, hereinafter Kostyk). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as the present application is obvious in view of the rejection below.
Please see table below for independent claim 1 (and similarly applied to claims 17 and 20):
18/780,168
11,776,142
Claim Interpretation
A method comprising: determining a respective
mapping between
a plurality of viewpoints
of a vehicle and a vehicle
model representing the vehicle, each mapping identifying a location on the vehicle model corresponding with a portion of the vehicle captured in the respective viewpoint;
creating a plurality of
defect identifiers for the vehicle model based on the mappings, each defect identifier linking one or more of the viewpoints to a respective one of the locations
on the vehicle model, and
providing for presentation on a display screen a user interface
that includes the vehicle model and the defect identifiers, the user interface presenting information related to a selected defect when a designated
defect identifier corresponding with the selected defect is selected in the vehicle model.
A method comprising: determining a respective mapping between
each of a plurality of viewpoints
of an object and an object model representing the object, each mapping identifying a location on the object model corresponding with a portion of the object captured in the respective viewpoint;
creating a plurality of
tags for the object
model based on the mappings, each tag linking one
or more of the viewpoints to a respective one of the locations on the object model; and providing for presentation on a display screen a user interface that includes the object model and the tags, the
user interface presenting
a designated one of the plurality of viewpoints when a designated
tag corresponding with the designated viewpoint is selected in the object model.
As can be seen with the side-by-side comparison, 18/780,168 is very similar to US 11,776,142. More specifically, there are only slight word variations including the present application changing “tags” to “defect identifiers”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art is aware that “tag” and “identifier” are used interchangeably.
Please see below the table for the other obvious differences.
US 11,776,142 substantially disclose the claimed invention but fails to teach automatically detecting, using artificial intelligence, defects associated with the vehicle.
However, Knuffman teaches automatically detecting, using artificial intelligence, defects associated with the vehicle (column 18 lines 6-10, 29-33, read as training sets of imaging data (also referred to herein as “images”) indicative of at least portions of reference vehicles may be input into machine learning programs which may be trained to identify damages and/or defects in vehicles. Knuffman further teaches machine learning may involve identifying and recognizing patterns in existing images of damages of vehicles and/or defects of vehicles in order to facilitate making predictions for subsequent images of subsequent vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Knuffman into the invention of US 11,776,142 in order to more accurately identify vehicle damage or defects, while reducing high equipment and labor costs.
Although the combination of US 11,776,142 and Knuffman disclose the identification of defects, the combination of US 11,776,142 and Knuffman fail to explicitly teach wherein the defect identifiers comprising information describing the defects.
However, Kostyk teaches wherein the defect identifiers comprising information describing the defects (paragraphs 40, 44, read as Unique ID, which can be used to distinguish one defect from all others, where these defects can be associated with vehicles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kostyk into the invention of US 11,776,142 and Knuffman in order to optimize the testing process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed over the prior art.
Applicant’s independent claims 1, 8 and 15 each recites a particular combination of elements, which is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art. Knuffman, Kostyk, the other cited references and a thorough search in the art disclose various aspects and features of applicant's claimed invention. More specifically, Knuffman teaches training sets of imaging data indicative of at least portions of reference vehicles may be input into machine learning programs which may be trained to identify damages and/or defects in vehicles, where machine learning may involve identifying and recognizing patterns in existing images of damages of vehicles and/or defects of vehicles in order to facilitate making predictions for subsequent images of subsequent vehicles (column 18 lines 6-10, 29-33). Kostyk teaches the use of unique IDs to describe the particular vehicle defect (paragraphs 40, 44). However, Knuffman, Kostyk, the other cited references and a thorough search in the art do not disclose or suggest determining a respective
mapping between a plurality of viewpoints of a vehicle and a vehicle model representing the vehicle, each mapping identifying a location on the vehicle model corresponding with a portion of the vehicle captured in the respective viewpoint; creating a plurality of defect identifiers for the vehicle model based on the mappings, each defect identifier linking one or more of the viewpoints to a respective one of the locations on the vehicle model, and providing for presentation on a display screen a user interface that includes the vehicle model and the defect identifiers, the user interface presenting information related to a selected defect when a designated defect identifier corresponding with the selected defect is selected in the vehicle model in combination with the other claim elements. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to arrive at applicant's claimed invention unless one was using applicant's claims and specification as a roadmap, thus using impermissible hindsight.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT whose telephone number is (571)270-1098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M BRANDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights