DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 08/26/2026, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. No claim has been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-3, 5, 7-11, 13, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachinski et al. (US Patent 12,566,899 B2) in view of Brown et al. (US Pub 2023/0300459 A1).
As to claim 1, Lachinski discloses a method comprising:
obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) model of a 3D scene and localization data (Claim 1, “receiving periodic new spatially accurate geometric information for human-made managed structures” “three-dimensional (3D) geometric plane creation drawing tools are used to derive or update 3D model mathematical objects from the new spatially accurate geometric information”);
localizing a scanning device in the 3D scene according to the localization data and the 3D model (Claim 1, “retrieving most recent versions of all existing 4D property models and 4D structure models of the managed structures””determining current revision status of all current 3D structure models of the managed structures for the managed area” Fig. 18, Col 15, lines 1-43, “Structure Sensor 1708 (FIG. 19 ) by Occipital, Inc. located in San Francisco, CA which is an addon to the iPAD that allows for complete 3D scanning of building interiors. Specifically, the addon is a mobile 3D sensor that gives the iPad the ability to perceive depth and “see in 3D.” It combines that data with the iPad's color camera and IMU to create a 3D model. Leica Geosystems markets a product called Disto 1710 (FIG. 19) which makes measurements between two points using a laser beam.”);
scanning the 3D scene with the scanning device and detecting differences between the 3D model and the scanned 3D scene (Fig. 18, Col 15, lines 1-43, “allows for complete 3D scanning of building interiors” claim 1, “retrieving most recent versions of all existing 4D property models and 4D structure models of the managed structures” “determining current revision status of all current 3D structure models of the managed structures for the managed area” “each 3D structure model is overlaid on the new spatially accurate geometric information to confirm a revision status for the 3D structure model,”);
highlighting the differences in a view of the 3D scene (Claim 1, “each 3D structure model is overlaid on the new spatially accurate geometric information to confirm a revision status for the 3D structure model,” Col 16, lines 43-51, “To provide change management for man-made structures, periodic aerial oblique imagery supplemented by available LiDAR (or equivalent active measurements) is needed to automatically create the geometry for the made-made structures. Even with maximum automation of man-made structures, a perspective view editor is still needed to overlay existing sketch records against the imagery and LiDAR to check the accuracy of the sketch and to make any modifications that may be required.”); and
modifying the 3D model according to a change detection mode (Claim 1, “wherein each 3D structure model has one and only one revision status at any given time” “storing new 3D structure models with a capture date of the new spatially accurate geometric information, its attributes, revision status, and a unique identifier; wherein the revision status for each 3D structure model for each of the managed structures in the managed area becomes available to the community of users” Col 23, lines 45-66, Col 24, lines 1-58, “subsequent editing with the 3D perspective sketching module.” “editing real world objects shown in natural image and/or 3D point clouds and/or Digital Surface models”).
Lachinski does not explicitly disclose receiving a user selection for a change detection mode; and modifying the 3D model according to the user-selected change detection mode.
Brown teaches receiving a user selection for a change detection mode; and modifying the 3D model according to the user-selected change detection mode (Brown, ¶0061, “At block 712, upon a selection of a button (e.g., button 1104 depicted in FIG. 11) for lock software camera mode by the user, software application 604 is configured to lock the field-of-view of the software camera 922 in the 3D image 622. At block 714, upon a selection by the user, software application 604 is configured to insert one or more 3D models 834 in the 3D image 622 to match the location of one or more objects 844 of interest in the semi-transparent image 624 in lock software camera mode and/or modify one or more 3D models 834 in the 3D image 622.”).
Lachinski and Brown are considered to be analogous art because all pertain to 3D object reconstruction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lachinski with the features of “receiving a user selection for a change detection mode; and modifying the 3D model according to the user-selected change detection mode” as taught by Brown. The claim would have been obvious because the technique for improving a particular class of devices was part of the ordinary capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art, in view of the teaching of the technique for improvement in other situations.
As to claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses a user is able to modify the change detection mode between a scanning of two parts of the 3D scene, and wherein the change detection mode belongs to a set of modes comprising:
keep detected removals and add detected insertions;
remove detected removals and ignore detected insertions;
keep detected removals and ignore detected insertions; and
remove detected removals and add detected insertions (Lachinski, Col 15, lines 44-53, “While users are conducting their assigned job tasks, they may also use productivity tools 1607 such as but not limited to; 3D map layers, create map layers using attribute data as criteria and view orthogonal or oblique imagery with map layers overlaid upon them. As the user completes and saves his or her work, each save triggers a synchronization process where the mobile application software pushes all new edits to all data types since the last synchronization.“ Claim 1, “the revision status of each 3D structure model is selected from the following group:
unchanged, when correct;
modified, when changed to be correct;
added, when missing; and
deleted, when the 3D structure model is no longer relevant;”).
As to claim 3, claim 2 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the set of change detection modes comprises a manual mode in which one or more change detection options are displayed to a user, wherein the one or more change detection options comprise one or more of keeping detected removals, ignoring detected removals, keeping detected insertions, and ignoring detected insertions, and wherein the 3D model is modified upon a choice of at least one of the one or more change detection options by the user (Lachinski, Col 18, lines 48-57, “The user may dynamically set the viewer location and perspective view when the camera view is not needed to create or edit a 3D model. Existing 3D point clouds, 3D model templates and existing drawings may be inserted into the scene for editing. The user may also select an ortho mode which permits the user to use a camera view model that emulates viewing and accurate editing in 3D orthographic imagery. This is accomplished by setting the viewer location directly above or below the structure location at a distance sufficient to provide accurate results.” Claim 1, “the revision status of each 3D structure model is selected from the following group: unchanged, when correct; modified, when changed to be correct; added, when missing; and deleted, when the 3D structure model is no longer relevant;”).
As to claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the scanning device captures RGB(D) frames of a part of the 3D scene, the differences are detected by comparing the RGB(D) frames with a corresponding part of the 3D model (Lachinski, Col 15, lines 10-20, “The invention supports full integration of products such as Structure Sensor 1708 (FIG. 19 ) by Occipital, Inc. located in San Francisco, CA which is an addon to the iPAD that allows for complete 3D scanning of building interiors. Specifically, the addon is a mobile 3D sensor that gives the iPad the ability to perceive depth and “see in 3D.” It combines that data with the iPad's color camera and IMU to create a 3D model. Leica Geosystems markets a product called Disto 1710 (FIG. 19 ) which makes measurements between two points using a laser beam.”. Claim 1, “each 3D structure model is overlaid on the new spatially accurate geometric information to confirm a revision status for the 3D structure model,” Col 16, lines 43-51, “To provide change management for man-made structures, periodic aerial oblique imagery supplemented by available LiDAR (or equivalent active measurements) is needed to automatically create the geometry for the made-made structures. Even with maximum automation of man-made structures, a perspective view editor is still needed to overlay existing sketch records against the imagery and LiDAR to check the accuracy of the sketch and to make any modifications that may be required.”).
As to claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the 3D model is a 3D mesh and wherein modifying the 3D model comprises modifying faces of the 3D mesh (Lachinski, Col 23, lines 45-66, Col 24, lines 1-58, “A Digital Surface Model (DSM) is defined here as a 3D regular grid or triangulated mesh.” “By analyzing color variations, facet slope, and distance above ground, 3D facets are automatically generated and categorized for comparison with the existing 3D model or subsequent editing with the 3D perspective sketching module.” A facet is a specific, specialized type of face.).
As to claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the highlighting of the differences is performed over a period of time after the detection of the differences (Lachinski, Col 16, lines 43-51, “To provide change management for man-made structures, periodic aerial oblique imagery supplemented by available LiDAR (or equivalent active measurements) is needed to automatically create the geometry for the made-made structures. Even with maximum automation of man-made structures, a perspective view editor is still needed to overlay existing sketch records against the imagery and LiDAR to check the accuracy of the sketch and to make any modifications that may be required.”).
As to claim 9, the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses a device comprising a scanning device and a display device and configured for:
obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) model of a 3D scene and localization data;
localizing a scanning device in the 3D scene according to the localization data and the 3D model;
scanning the 3D scene with the scanning device and detecting differences between the 3D model and the scanned 3D scene;
highlighting the differences in a view of the 3D scene displayed on the display device; receiving a user selection for a change detection mode; and
modifying the 3D model according to the user-selected change detection mode (See claim 1 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses a user is able to modify the change detection mode between a scanning of two parts of the 3D scene, and wherein the change detection mode belongs to a set of modes comprising:
keep detected removals and add detected insertions;
remove detected removals and ignore detected insertions;
keep detected removals and ignore detected insertions; and
remove detected removals/add detected insertions (See claim 2 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 11, claim 10 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the set of change detection modes comprises a manual mode in which one or more change detection options are displayed to a user, wherein the one or more change detection options comprise one or more of keeping detected removals, ignoring detected removals, keeping detected insertions, and ignoring detected insertions, and wherein the 3D model is modified upon a choice of an at least one of the one or more change detection options by the user (See claim 3 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 13, claim 9 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the scanning device captures RGB(D) frames of a part of the 3D scene, the differences are detected by comparing the RGB(D) frames with a corresponding part of the 3D model (See claim 5 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 15, claim 9 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the 3D model is a 3D mesh and wherein modifying the 3D model is modifying faces of the 3D mesh (See claim 7 for detailed analysis.).
As to claim 16, claim 9 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Brown discloses the highlighting of the differences is performed over a period of time after the detection of the differences (See claim 8 for detailed analysis.).
Claim 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachinski et al. (US Patent 12,566,899 B2) in view of Brown et al. (US Pub 2023/0300459 A1) and Blondel et al. (US Pub 2023/0063306 A1).
As to claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and Lachinski discloses maintaining a database of removed objects of the 3D scene (Col 2, lines 62-65, “The system uses a change management system to catalog data changes from any of the databases within the system that have published work” Col 9, lines 36-47, “The Change Management module is responsible for identifying changes 505 by comparing versions of data within a database 503, a current version to the latest version 504 and when a change is validated 511 it is cataloged 507 and the data is stored on a server with a change type, date/time stamp/, userID, data sourceID, and status”) and,
Lachinski does not discloses when a new object is detected, searching for an occurrence of the new object in the database.
Blondel teaches when a new object is detected, searching for an occurrence of the new object in the database (Blondel, abstract, “performing a 3D match search in a 3D database using the 3D points cloud reconstruction, to identify the object, the 3D match search comprising a comparison of the reconstructed 3D points cloud of the object with 3D points clouds of known objects stored in the 3D database.” ¶0087, “The reconstructed 3D points cloud 1050 is forwarded to the storage server 30 for a 3D match search. The 3D match search is done with a 3D points cloud comparison made using the ply files. The comparison compares the user-generated ply file 1050 with known ply files 1052 stored in the 3D database 38.”).
Lachinski and Blondel are considered to be analogous art because all pertain to 3D object reconstruction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lachinski with the features of “when a new object is detected, searching for an occurrence of the new object in the database” as taught by Blondel. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to identify the object (Blondel, abstract.).
As to claim 12, claim 9 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Blondel discloses the device is further configured for maintaining a database of removed objects of the 3D scene and, when a new object is detected, searching for an occurrence of the new object in the database (See claim 4 for detailed analysis.).
Claim 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lachinski et al. (US Patent 12,566,899 B2) in view of Brown et al. (US Pub 2023/0300459 A1) and Schickel (US Pub 2018/0196261 A1).
As to claim 6, claim 5 is incorporated and Lachinski does not disclose the highlighting of the differences is displayed on a static RGB(D) frame in which the differences are fully visible.
Schickel teaches the highlighting of the differences is displayed on a static RGB(D) frame in which the differences are fully visible (Schichel, ¶0057, “capture 30 frames of said scene per second, and to generate a corresponding 3D model of the scene for each frame and to describe it by means of the vertices and color values. The data which is thus generated for each frame (each single image) includes, as was mentioned above, the color values and the depth information, e.g., RGB values and X Y and Z values, each of which defines a vertex, the plurality of vertices forming a point cloud.” ¶0089, “the present embodiments are applied in surveillance as depiction and transmission of changing contents. For some applications, surveillance, recognition and transmission of changing contents are particularly important. In this context, differences of a static 3D model within specific limits (threshold values) as compared to a captured live image are generated so as to recognize any changes faster and more accurately than in a 2D video recording. For example, let us look at surveillance of a drilling rig. A static 3D model of the drilling rig is compared to a 3D image from an angle of view toward the drilling rig several times per second; for example, the drilling rig may be animated via the 3D engine during runtime. Any changes which occur in the live 3D model, such as a person entering into a picture-taking area, are compared to the static 3D model and may trigger alerts. For a 3D vision of the situation and of the location of the rig including the person, only transmission of the differences may be used since the static rig already exists as a 3D model, which is advantageous as compared to complete video transmission with regard to the amount of data, the speed, the 3D spatial view with an interactive visual focus and with an interactive quality of depiction, and to the quality of visualization.”).
Lachinski and Schickel are considered to be analogous art because all pertain to 3D object reconstruction. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lachinski with the features of “the highlighting of the differences is displayed on a static RGB(D) frame in which the differences are fully visible” as taught by Schickel. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to recognize any changes faster and more accurately (Schickel, ¶0089).
As to claim 14, claim 13 is incorporated and the combination of Lachinski and Schickel discloses the highlighting of the differences is displayed on a static RGB(D) frame in which the differences are fully visible (See claim 6 for detailed analysis.).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Error! Unknown document property name. whose telephone number is Error! Unknown document property name.. The examiner can normally be reached on Error! Unknown document property name..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Error! Unknown document property name. can be reached on Error! Unknown document property name.. 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.
/YU CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights