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 .
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,668,018 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the instant application are either broader than, substantially similar to, and/or encompassed by claims of the issued patent, per the table below.
U.S. App. No. 18/886,121
U.S. Patent No. 11,688,018 B2
1. A method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method of generating a three-dimensional representation of an object, comprising:
receiving, by a processor,
a first image of an object captured in a first wavelength range;
receiving, by the processor,
a second image of the object captured in a second wavelength range, the second wavelength range being different from the first wavelength range;
receiving, by a processor,
a plurality of images,
wherein each image of the plurality of images is captured within a unique respective wavelength range of an electromagnetic spectrum;
identifying, by the processor:
a first subset of data points from the first image representing an area of the object, the first subset characterized by a first amount of captured radiation, and
a second subset of data points from the second image representing the area of the object, the second subset characterized by a second amount of captured radiation;
generating, by the processor and based on the plurality of images, a three-dimensional virtual model of the object, wherein generating the three-dimensional virtual model includes selecting:
a first subset of data points from a first image of the plurality of images captured in a first wavelength range, the first subset of data points identifying a first component of the object, and
a second subset of data points from a second image of the plurality of images captured in a second wavelength range exclusive of the first wavelength range, the second subset of data points identifying a second component of the object,
determining, by the processor, that the first amount is greater than the second amount;
wherein the first component reflects a greater portion of radiation in the first wavelength range than in the second wavelength range, and the second component reflects a greater portion of radiation in the second wavelength range than in the first wavelength range;
generating, by the processor and based on determining that the first amount is greater than the second amount, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual model using the first subset of data points, the 3D virtual model including the area of the object; and
SEE above “generating” step in the third cell
presenting, by the processor and via a display associated with an electronic device, the 3D virtual model.
presenting, by the processor and via a display associated with an electronic device, the three-dimensional virtual model of the object, the three-dimensional virtual model showing the damage.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first wavelength range or the second wavelength range comprises: a visible wavelength range, an x-ray wavelength range, an ultraviolet wavelength range, or an infrared wavelength range.
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first wavelength range is within a mid-infrared spectrum or a far-infrared spectrum, and the first subset of data points corresponds to a glass component of the object.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting, by the processor and via the display, a user interface configured to enable interactions with the 3D virtual model, the interactions comprising one or more of:
zooming in on specific areas,
rotating the 3D virtual model, or
selecting a component of the object as represented in the 3D virtual model.
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
presenting, by the processor and via the display, a user interface configured to enable zooming in on specific areas of the three-dimensional virtual model or rotating the three-dimensional virtual model.
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 5
Claim 9
Claim 10 (system claim corresponding to claim 1 recites cameras)
Claim 12 (system claim corresponding to claim 1)
Claim 10 (system claim corresponding to claim 1)
Claim 13
Claim 11
Clam 14
Claim 4
Claim 16
Claim 8
Claim 17 (CRM claim corresponding to claim 1)
Claim 19 (CRM claim corresponding to claim 1)
Claim 19
Claim 20
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, 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, 3, 8, 10-12, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Del Pozo, S., et al. "Multispectral imaging: Fundamentals, principles and methods of damage assessment in constructions." Non-Destructive Techniques for the Evaluation of Structures and Infrastructure 11 (2016): 139-166 (“Del Pozo”) in view of Plummer (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0278570 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Del Pozo teaches: a method (Title and Abstract, a method of damage assessment), comprising:
receiving, by a processor (processor of computer, in computer-aided tasks, see Section 7.1.1., third paragraph), a first image of an object captured in a first wavelength range (mapped below with the next “receiving” step);
receiving, by the processor (processor of computer, in computer-aided tasks, see Section 7.1.1., third paragraph), a second image of the object captured in a second wavelength range, the second wavelength range being different from the first wavelength range (see Section 7.3 “Acquiring a Multispectral Dataset”, which teaches obtaining multiple images from multiple cameras, each of the images of different wavelength ranges. For example, “in the case of using multispectral systems, the formation of the multispectral dataset is performed simultaneously owing to the synchronized use of a set of cameras integrated into a single sensor. Each of these cameras can be equipped with an optic filter designed to absorb radiation only within a specific wavelength range (Lillesand et al. 2004) or with a dedicated sensor with an integrated filter” (page. 140);
identifying, by the processor (*same processor mapped above):
a first subset of data points from the first image representing an area of the object, the first subset characterized by a first amount of captured radiation, and
a second subset of data points from the second image representing the area of the object, the second subset characterized by a second amount of captured radiation (regarding the first and second subsets of data characterizing two captured amounts of radiation from two images, recall above mapping of multispectral imaging. Multispectral images are images from different radiation/wavelengths (wavelength is a measure of radiation). See also Section 7.2 Theoretical Background, which teaches that different materials will have different spectral signatures (e.g. Section 7.2.3 “Spectral Signatures”). The first two paras. of Section 7.2.3 are reproduced for convenience:
The wavelength and its location on the electromagnetic spectrum are the parameters that are usually used to classify electromagnetic waves. In the electromagnetic spectrum it is possible to distinguish different regions: the ultraviolet, the visible (wavelengths between blue and red; from 400 to 700 nm), the infrared (near infrared: 700–1,300 nm, middle infrared: 1,300–3,000nm and thermal: 3,000–14,000 nm), microwaves (from 1mm to 1 m) etc.
Acquiring data from constructions and façades in a remote way by multispectral
systems and sensors is possible thanks to the interaction between the electromagnetic
energy and the different molecular components of materials. Each material has its
specific spectral behavior, which can be obtained in the laboratory under controlled
conditions. That is, each material has its specific way of reflecting energy at the different
wavelengths and it is perceived by observing its spectral signature (Fig. 7.3).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See also Fig. 7.3. as reproduced above, which gives non-limiting examples of different materials with different spectral signatures/wavelengths. Wavelength is a measure of radiation.
The thrust of Del Pozo is using multi-spectral imaging to determine damage assessment, materials present, and their conditions. This teaches the above identifying step, which is the result of the teachings of Del Pozo, capturing images, and assessing for radiation or spectral signatures in the images. See also Fig. 7.4.
determining, by the processor, that the first amount is greater than the second amount (this is taught by Del Pozo, this would indicate there is a presence of a certain material in the first image, or alternatively, an obvious embodiment using multispectral images for a user intended use, to assess damage. Applicant’s specification also does not specifically describe or have this claim language, except in just the claim set);
generating, by the processor and based on determining that the first amount is greater than the second amount, a three-dimensional (3D) virtual model using the first subset of data points, the 3D virtual model including the area of the object (section 7.4.2, using the sensor information for reconstruction of 3D geometry of the object. Another teaching: Section 7.5: Damage Assessment, generating 3D models comparable to monitor, for example); and
presenting, by the processor and via a display associated with an electronic device, the 3D virtual model (see mapping to generating step, displaying the 3D models) (alternatively: see also Plummer reference, which teaches in the damage assessment of roof structures and Fig., 3, 3D model of a house with shingles/roof structure).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
Del Pozo teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein the first wavelength range is within a mid-infrared spectrum or a far-infrared spectrum (see Fig. 7.3, to the right of the visible is infrared), and the first subset of data points corresponds to a glass component of the object (page 143, Section 7.2.2., glass is a known material with a spectral signature).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known science to characterize and/or assess property damage.
Regarding claim 8:
Del Pozo teaches: the method of claim 1, wherein: the first subset of data points is selected based at least in part on an average intensity of the first subset of data points in the first image, and the second subset of data points is selected based at least in part on an average intensity of the second subset of data points in the second image (see Table 7.1, “k-means” pixel classification teaches the above claim features. Alternatively, so does “minimum distance to means”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known classification and science to characterize and/or assess property damage.
Regarding claim 10:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the method of claim 1, wherein the area is a first area, the method further comprising:
identifying, by the processor: a third subset of data points from the first image representing a second area of the object, the third subset characterized by a third amount of captured radiation, and
a fourth subset of data points from the second image representing the second area of the object, the fourth subset characterized by a fourth amount of captured radiation;
determining, by the processor, that the fourth amount is greater than the third amount; and,
based on determining that the fourth amount is greater than the third amount, generating, by the processor, a representation of the second area in the 3D virtual model based on the fourth subset of data points, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
See above mapping to claim 1. Claim 10 is respectfully an extension of claim 1, with more processing for different materials/compositions in the images. This is taught by Del Pozo in terms of spectral signatures and multispectral imaging. This teaches the third and fourth subsets, and the remainder of claim 10, an embodiment and obvious design choice, seeking a specific material or damage assessment in the images, and updating the 3D model. Also, the examiner notes that applicant’s written description does not describe amounts greater than any other amount – this is only in the current claim set, and not the specification as filed.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
Del Pozo teaches: the method of claim 10, wherein the first area is composed of plastic or metal, and the second area is composed of glass (page 143, teaches glass and/or metal).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known classification and science to characterize and/or assess property damage.
Regarding claim 12: see also claim 1.
Plummer and/or Del Pozo teach: a system, comprising: (claim 12, system) a processor (claim 12, processors);
a first camera operably connected to the processor, the first camera being configured to capture images in a first wavelength range (see mapping to Del Pozo in claim 1, multiple cameras, section 7.3 for multispectral imaging);
a second camera operably connected to the processor, the second camera being configured to capture images in a second wavelength range different from the first wavelength range (see mapping to Del Pozo in claim 1, multiple cameras, section 7.3 for multispectral imaging); and
a non-transitory program memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (Plummer, claim 12), cause the processor to.
The instructions correspond to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 17: see also claim 1.
Plummer teaches: a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions for (claim 15) generating a three-dimensional representation of an object (see mapping to claim 1) that, when executed by a processor of a system, cause the processor to (claim 15).
The instructions correspond to the method of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 18:
Del Pozo teaches: the tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein: at least one of the first wavelength range or the second wavelength range comprises: a visible wavelength range, an x-ray wavelength range, an ultraviolet wavelength range, or an infrared wavelength range (Fig. 7.3, reproduced above in this office action), and the area of the object is composed of plastic, metal, or glass (page. 143 and/or Fig. 7.4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to use known classification and science to characterize and/or assess property damage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613