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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitation “performing 3D operations”. This limitation would at least put the reader in doubt because it is unclear what kind of operations are being carried out. The limitation may be clarified by incorporating the limitations of 2 or 3. Please clarify.
Since claims 4-18 directly or indirectly depend on claim 1, they are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
Notice re prior art available under both pre-AIA and AIA
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 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.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below 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 as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Wenjie (Computer English Translation of WO 2022041119 A1) or Fan, et al. (2016/0154999 A1) .
With regard to claim 31, Wenji discloses a computer-implemented method for identifying an object-of-interest from a 3D point cloud, the 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of data points, the method comprising: accessing the 3D point cloud (See for example, page 6, paragraph 1; the Abstract); defining at least one cluster of data points; for each of the at least one cluster, determining a corresponding cluster parameter based on a number of data points of the cluster, a location of a center of mass of the cluster with respect to a reference point of the 3D point cloud, and a resolution of the cluster (See for example, page 9, paragraph 1 – page 10, paragraph 2; and page 8, paragraphs 3-5); and identifying the object-of-interest, i.e., point, pixel, and/or region of interest, based on the calculated cluster parameters (See for example, page 9, paragraph 1). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
With regard to claim 31, Fan, et al. disclose a computer-implemented method for identifying an object-of-interest from a 3D point cloud, the 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of data points (See for example, Figs. 1-3 and the associated text), the method comprising: accessing the 3D point cloud (See for example, (See for example, paragraphs 0003, 0035 and 0058); defining at least one cluster of data points; for each of the at least one cluster, determining a corresponding cluster parameter based on a number of data points of the cluster, a location of a center of mass of the cluster with respect to a reference point of the 3D point cloud, and a resolution of the cluster (See for example, paragraphs 18-25 and 77); and identifying the object-of-interest based on the calculated cluster parameters (See for example, paragraphs 0003, 0006-0007, 0050). Thus, each of the requirements of claim 1 is met.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-16, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, et al. (US 2016/0154999 A1) in view of Zhang, et al. (US 2020/0077383A1).
With regard to claim 1, as best understood, Fan, et al. (hereinafter “Fan”) discloses a computer-implemented method for extracting an object-of-interest from a 3D point cloud prior to performing 3D operations onto the extracted object-of-interest, the 3D point cloud comprising a plurality of data points (See for example, Figs. 1-3 and the associated text), the method comprising: accessing the 3D point cloud (See for example, paragraphs 0003, 0035 and 0058); in response to identifying a planar surface, within the 3D point cloud: identifying first data points that define the planar surface from the 3D point cloud (See for example, paragraphs 0006-0007 and 0058-0061); identifying second data points for which a distance to the planar surface is below a first distance threshold (See for example, paragraphs 0012-0016); identifying third data, i.e., remaining, points for which a skill in the art to combine the teaching of Zhang, et al. with Fan. The motivation for doing so would at least allow to evaluate color distances associated with each point of the 3d data and compare the distance with a predefined threshold, and if the result falls below the threshold, it may be considered an outlier and gets removed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fan with Zhang, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
With regard to claim 2, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein performing 3D operations on the object-of-interest comprises performing geometric measurements thereon (See for example, paragraphs 18-25 of Fan).
With regard to claim 5, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein removing the first, second and third data points from the 3D point cloud to create pre-curated 3D point cloud clusters comprises: in response to a distance between two pre-curated 3D point cloud clusters being below a third distance threshold, merging the two pre-curated 3D point cloud clusters into a same pre-curated 3D point cloud cluster (See for example, paragraph 0012-0016 of Fan).
With regard to claim 6, the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the distance between two pre-curated 3D point cloud clusters is a color distance (See for example, paragraph 0080 of Fan; and paragraphs 0052-0053 of Zhang, et al.).
With regard to claim 9, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising applying a statistical outlier removal process prior to determining a corresponding cluster parameter for each of the 3D point cloud clusters (See for example, paragraph 0112 of Fan).
With regard to claim 10, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein identifying a planar surface within the 3D point cloud comprises identifying a surface in the 3D point cloud that is perpendicular to a reference axis (See for example, paragraphs 0006-0007 of Fan).
With regard to claim 11, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to removing the first data point from the 3D point cloud: determining a main normal vector of the planar surface; and in response to an angular difference between a local normal vector at a given data point of the first data points and the main normal vector being above an angular threshold, excluding the given data points from the first data points (See for example, paragraphs 0014-0016 of Fan).
With regard to claim 12, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the planar surface is a ground planar surface (See for example, paragraphs 0006-0007 of Fan).
With regard to claim 14, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to identifying the first data points, defining a search area within the 3D point cloud (via dividing the 3D point cloud data into rectangular tiles) for searching the planar surface (See for example, paragraphs 0060-0062 of Fan).
With regard to claim 15, the computer-implemented method of claim 14, wherein defining the search area comprises: determining a bounding box (reads on tiles) of the 3D point cloud; defining the search area as a portion of the bounding box (See for example, paragraphs 0060-0062 of Fan).
With regard to claim 16, the computer-implemented method of claim 15, wherein the search area is a lower portion of the bounding box (See for example, paragraphs 0060-0062; and Fig. 3a of Fan).
With regard to claim 18, the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising removing a pre-curated 3D point cloud cluster from the 3D point cloud in response to a number of data points of the pre-curated 3D point cloud cluster being below a data point threshold (See for example, paragraphs 0076 and 0086-0091 of Fan).
With regard to claim 22, claim 1 encompasses the limitation of this claim, and is rejected the same as claim 1. Thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 22.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fan in view of Zhang, et al. as applied to claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, 14-16, 18, and 22 above, and further in view of Abuelwafa, et al. (US 12,511,835 B2).
With regard to claim 3, Fan (as modified by Zhang, et al.) discloses all of the claimed subject matter as already addressed above in paragraph 11, and incorporated herein by reference. Fan (as modified by Zhang, et al.) does not expressly call for wherein performing 3D operations on the object-of-interest comprises morphing the object-of-interest onto a 3D model. However, Abuelwafa, et al(See for example, Fig. 18 and the associated text) teach this feature. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate teaching of Abuelwafa, et al. into the system of Fan (as modified by Zhang, et al.), if for no other reason than to carry of a 3D morphing operation of the object/s. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fan (as modified by Zhang, et al.) with Abuelwafa, et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. A publication to Algorithm for 3D point cloud denoising (See entire document); and Computer English Translation of WO 2022041119 A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL G MARIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7394. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 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, Mathew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL G MARIAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights