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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-20 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (a mobile computing module and associated method), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/26/2026.
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 this 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a computing module” in claim 1.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure(s) described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the processor 1410 shown in Fig. 14, which is a specialized processor when it executes the algorithm illustrated in Fig. 4.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0383549), in view of Hazeghi et al. (Pub. No. 2018/0130255).
Regarding claim 1,
Zheng discloses a three-dimensional scanning system, comprising a three-dimensional scanner and a computing module (Fig. 1 illustrates a multi-mode scanner having a laser projector, a speckle projector, and at least two cameras connected to a computing processor). Zheng discloses that the three-dimensional scanner generates image data based on image sensors (the black-and-white cameras synchronously acquire images of laser lines and markers projected onto the object, or of infrared speckle patterns, depending on the active scanning mode. See also Fig. 2 and par. 64), and performs a calculation of a three-dimensional reconstruction based on the image data to determine target three-dimensional data (the 3D data reconstructor of the computing processor reconstructs, from the acquired 2D images, target 3D data (a three-dimensional point cloud and three-dimensional marker data) corresponding to the current frame using a triangulation/epipolar-geometry principle; see Fig. 2 and par. 64). Zheng further discloses a computing module communicatively connected to the three-dimensional scanner to obtain the target three-dimensional data and perform a further calculation of a three-dimensional reconstruction to generate a first three-dimensional model (the 3D data converter of the computing processor obtains a rotation-translation "stitching conversion" between the current frame's reconstructed data and previously stored frame data, based on matched markers or matched feature points, and fuses the current frame into a common coordinate system to build up the aggregate scan model; see Fig. 2 and pars. 64, 70, and 72).
Zheng does not expressly disclose a display module, communicatively connected to the computing module, that obtains the first three-dimensional model and displays it in real time.
Hazeghi, in the same field of endeavor of portable three-dimensional scanning systems, discloses an interaction system comprising a display device and a network interface, wherein the display device receives a combined point cloud or three-dimensional mesh model generated by the processing system and displays it in real time or substantially real time during the scan, so that the user is given live visual feedback of the scan as it progresses (See pars. 16 and 51).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Hazeghi's real-time display module into Zheng's multi-mode scanning system, in order to provide the user with immediate visual feedback of scan quality and coverage, thereby allowing the user to more efficiently identify unscanned or poorly scanned regions of the object during acquisition, as taught by Hazeghi.
Regarding claim 2,
Zheng discloses that obtaining the target three-dimensional data and performing the calculation of the three-dimensional reconstruction to generate the first three-dimensional model comprises, in a real-time fusion mode, obtaining target three-dimensional data of a current frame and obtaining target three-dimensional data of all frames before the current frame that has already been stored (Zheng discloses that, frame by frame during scanning, the reconstructed point cloud and marker/feature data of the current frame are compared against the accumulated point cloud and marker/feature data of previously acquired frames; see pars. 9-10). Zheng further discloses determining a first rotation-translation relationship between the current frame's data and a reference coordinate system based on a common feature between the current frame and prior frames (Zheng discloses obtaining a stitching conversion, i.e., a rotation-translation matrix, according to a relationship between the reconstructed markers, or matched feature points, of the previous and subsequent frames; see par. 73), and incrementally fusing the current frame's data into the previously stored first three-dimensional model according to the rotation-translation relationship and a first preset fusion parameter to generate a current first three-dimensional model, the reference coordinate system being the coordinate system of the first three-dimensional model (See par. 73).
Regarding claim 3,
Zheng discloses determining a rotation-translation relationship between reconstructed three-dimensional data and a reference coordinate system based on a common feature (markers or matched feature points), and fusing the data into the common coordinate system (as discussed above with respect to claim 2). However, Zheng's disclosure is directed to frame-by-frame (real-time) registration, and does not expressly disclose a distinct global fusion mode in which target three-dimensional data of all frames is obtained together and a second rotation-translation relationship is determined based on a common feature of all frames simultaneously, with a first preset fusion parameter comprising a first point distance.
Hazeghi discloses that, in addition to real-time, frame-by-frame point cloud accumulation performed during scanning, the system can operate in an offline or global processing mode in which the entire accumulated (all-frame) point cloud and its associated camera poses are refined together using geometric registration techniques such as the Iterated Closest Point (ICP) algorithm, which associates points across the whole data set based on common surface features, and in which the depth data is decimated, i.e., subsampled according to a point-spacing parameter, to make the registration computationally tractable. Hazeghi further teaches that this global, all-frame registration and fusion pass produces a three-dimensional model of higher quality and consistency than the real-time, frame-by-frame preview model alone (See pars. 8, 90, and 111).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zheng's rotation-translation, common-feature-based registration technique across all stored frames simultaneously in a separate global fusion mode using a preset point-distance parameter, as taught by Hazeghi, in order to eliminate cumulative frame-to-frame drift and produce a more accurate and dimensionally consistent three-dimensional model, motivated by Hazeghi's express teaching that global, all-frame processing yields higher-quality results than incremental real-time processing alone.
Regarding claim 4,
Zheng in view of Hazeghi discloses the global fusion mode of claim 3. Hazeghi further discloses that the computing/processing module obtains an indication that data acquisition (scanning) has ended, and thereafter enters an offline or global optimization mode based on that indication (Hazeghi discloses that "turnaround time" is measured from the moment data acquisition ends to the moment a refined three-dimensional model is produced, and that the higher-quality, all-frame registration and mesh-generation processing is triggered following completion of the scan, i.e., upon the client system's acquisition process ending and the accumulated data being made available for global processing; see par. 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to configure Zheng's system, as modified by Hazeghi, to receive a signal indicating that the three-dimensional scanner has completed scanning and to enter the global optimization mode based on that signal, in order to reserve the computationally expensive global registration and optimization processing for the point in time when the complete data set is available, thereby conserving processing resources during active scanning while still producing a high-fidelity final model, as taught by Hazeghi.
Regarding claim 5,
Hazeghi discloses that incremental data of the current (accumulating) three-dimensional model is obtained and rendered, and the rendered incremental data is sent to the display module (Hazeghi discloses computing a real-time preview by decimating newly acquired depth maps and combining them into a preview point cloud, rendering that preview point cloud, and overlaying it in real time on the live camera view shown on the display device, so that the user receives immediate visual feedback as each new increment of data is acquired; see par. 21). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to combine this teaching with the system of Zheng in view of Hazeghi discussed with respect to claim 1, for the same reason discussed above: to provide the user with immediate, incrementally updated visual feedback of scan progress and quality.
Regarding claim 6,
Hazeghi discloses that the display module further comprises an editing component used to edit the first three-dimensional model displayed by the display module (Hazeghi discloses a user interface that allows the user to pause an in-progress scan, view the point cloud acquired so far, and manually realign or correct the position of the point cloud, through user input, before resuming the scan or starting a new "chunk" if the point cloud cannot be properly realigned; see Figs. 8A-8H and the associated description). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate Hazeghi's editing/realignment component into the display module of Zheng's system in view of Hazeghi, in order to allow the user to correct misaligned or erroneous scan data during the scanning session, thereby improving the accuracy and completeness of the resulting three-dimensional model, as taught by Hazeghi.
Regarding claim 7,
Hazeghi discloses that, after the computing module generates the first three-dimensional model, a project file is generated and stored according to a configuration file that has been set, the target three-dimensional data, and the first three-dimensional model (Hazeghi discloses a manifest, or configuration, file that specifies how the computational pipeline for generating a three-dimensional model is to be distributed between the client-side scanning device and a separate, offline processing system, and further discloses that the client transmits the accumulated point cloud, selected color images, and associated depth images, i.e., target three-dimensional data, together with such configuration settings, to the offline processing system; see pars. 13 and 148). Hazeghi discloses that this project file (the transmitted data and configuration settings) is used for generating a second three-dimensional model on another terminal (the offline processing system, which may be a local or remote server physically separate from the scanning device, computes a refined point cloud and camera poses from the transmitted data and generates a three-dimensional mesh model), and that the second three-dimensional model is a three-dimensional model generated by performing a calculation of a three-dimensional reconstruction according to the target three-dimensional data and a second preset fusion parameter (Hazeghi discloses that the offline processing system's registration and mesh-generation processing is governed by configuration settings, specified in the manifest file, that differ from those used for the client's real-time preview processing, including settings directed to model quality and geometric detail, and that the resulting offline model is of higher quality, e.g., greater geometric detail, than the real-time model generated at the scanner; see pars. 13 and 148).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to incorporate Hazeghi's project-file/configuration-file-driven, cross-terminal model generation into the system of Zheng in view of Hazeghi, in order to offload computationally expensive, high-fidelity model generation to a separate terminal with greater processing resources, without requiring the portable scanning device itself to bear that computational and power burden, as expressly taught by Hazeghi.
Regarding claim 8,
Zheng discloses that the three-dimensional scanning system comprises a laser scanning mode, in which the image data comprises features of laser lines and features of marking points (Zheng discloses that, in the laser-based scanning mode, the laser projector projects laser light onto the object, and the cameras synchronously acquire a two-dimensional image containing both the laser-line pattern and the markers disposed on or near the object). Zheng further discloses that a three-dimensional reconstruction is performed based on the features of the laser lines to generate point cloud three-dimensional data, and a three-dimensional reconstruction is performed based on the features of the marking points to generate marking point three-dimensional data, such that the target three-dimensional data comprises both point cloud three-dimensional data and marking point three-dimensional data (Zheng discloses reconstructing, from the laser-line features in the captured image, a three-dimensional laser-line point cloud, and, from the marker features in the same image, three-dimensional marker (marking point) data, using a triangulation/epipolar principle, both of which together form the target three-dimensional data used for frame-to-frame registration and fusion as discussed above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zheng.
Regarding claim 9,
Claim 9 recites a three-dimensional scanning method applied to a three-dimensional scanner comprising a plurality of image sensors, and is substantially co-extensive with the scanner-side functionality of the system of claim 1. Zheng discloses obtaining image data generated by the image sensors based on an object to be scanned, and performing a calculation of a three-dimensional reconstruction according to the image data to determine target three-dimensional data used to generate a first three-dimensional model corresponding to the object, wherein the target three-dimensional data comprises point cloud three-dimensional data corresponding to laser lines output by the scanner and marking point three-dimensional data corresponding to at least one marking point on the object, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 10,
Zheng in view of Hazeghi discloses a three-dimensional scanning method applied to a terminal, comprising obtaining three-dimensional data of an object to be scanned generated by a three-dimensional scanner (Zheng discloses the computing processor/terminal obtaining, from the scanner, the reconstructed point cloud and marker data of each captured frame), determining a target fusion mode according to a generation situation of a first three-dimensional model corresponding to the object, and in the target fusion mode, performing a calculation of a three-dimensional reconstruction according to the three-dimensional data to generate the first three-dimensional model, the target fusion mode comprising a global fusion mode and/or a real-time fusion mode (Zheng, Fig. 3 and pars. 17 and 73. In particular, Zheng discloses that a mixed scanning mode (a target fusion mode) can be selected when detail features cannot be well restored by marker repairing and some objects being scanned cannot be fully pasted with markers (generation situation of a 3D model corresponding to an object being scanned). The mixed scanning mode could be viewed as a global fusion mode because the laser line-based point cloud and the speckle-based point cloud are unified in the same coordinate system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm 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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights