DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on/after Mar. 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the 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 (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 20-39 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action, or by timely-filing a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20 and claim 29, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or disclose the claim limitation “extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … lines of the non-architectural element” in combination with the claim limitation “generating a 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element” and further in combination with the other recited limitations. The Examiner notes that similar claim language (“extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … boundaries of the non-architectural element” and “scaling the 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element in the … image(s)”) was cited in the “Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance” in the Notice of Allowance (mailed 22 August 2024) of the instant application’s parent application (now Patent No. 12,182,961). The Examiner notes that the ‘extracting …’ steps differ only by ‘lines’/ ‘boundaries’; the Examiner asserts that ‘boundaries’ are simply just ‘lines’ that surround the perimeter of a shape/object. The Examiner notes that the ‘generating …’/‘scaling …’ steps do not differ otherwise; the Examiner asserts that the ‘scaling …’ step is an obvious variant of ‘generating …’, in that a person having ordinary skill in the art understands that a typical step of 3-D model generation involves ‘scaling’/dimensioning/proportionality.
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 20-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,961. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because (See table below).
Patent 12,182,961
Instant Application 18/956,755
Differences Explained (Bolded)
1. A method of scaling a … (3D) scene, the method comprising:
receiving … images of comprising a building object;
generating a 3D model based on the plurality of images;
extracting … boundaries of a non-architectural element in … image(s) of the … images;
extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … boundaries of the non-architectural element;
scaling the 3D model
based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element
in the … image(s).
20. A method of scaling a … (3D) scene, the method comprising:
receiving … images
comprising a building object;
extracting … lines of a
non-architectural element in … image(s) of the … images;
extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … lines of the non-architectural element;
generating a 3D model
based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element.
(Bolded). The Examiner notes that the ‘generating …’ step is omitted in the instant application, making the instant claim broader than the patented claim.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the … boundaries comprise … lines.
21. The method of claim 20, wherein the … lines
comprise … boundaries.
(Bolded).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein extracting the
non-architectural element comprises receiving identifications of … boundaries of the non-architectural element.
22. The method of claim 20, wherein extracting the … lines of the
non-architectural element comprises receiving identifications of the … lines
of the non-architectural element.
(Bolded).
9.
23.
(These claims are repeated nearly verbatim.)
10.
24.
(These claims are repeated verbatim.)
11.
25.
(These claims are repeated verbatim.)
12.
26.
(These claims are repeated verbatim.)
13.
27.
(These claims are repeated verbatim.)
17. The method of claim 1, wherein
the 3D model comprises
a building object.
28. The method of claim 20, wherein generating
the 3D model comprises generating a 3D model of
the building object.
(Bolded).
18. Non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by a system comprising … processor(s),
cause the … processor(s) to perform operations
comprising:
receiving … images of comprising a building object;
generating a 3D model based on the … images;
extracting … boundaries of a non-architectural element in … image(s) of the … images;
extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … boundaries of the non-architectural element;
scaling the 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element in the … image(s).
29. … non-transitory computer-readable medium/a storing instructions that, when executed by …
processor(s),
cause the … processor(s) to perform a method of scaling a … (3D) scene, the method comprising:
receiving … images
comprising a building object;
extracting … lines of a non-architectural element in … image(s) of the … images; extracting … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element based on the … lines of the non-architectural element;
generating a 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element.
(Bolded). The Examiner notes that the ‘generating …’ step is omitted in the instant application, making the instant claim broader than the patented claim.
4.
30.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
5.
31.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
6. The method of claim 1,
wherein the … boundaries comprise … lines.
32. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 29,
wherein the … lines
comprise … boundaries.
(Bolded).
8. The method
of claim 1,
wherein extracting
the non-architectural element comprises
receiving identifications of … boundaries of the non-architectural element.
33. The non-transitory computer-readable media
of claim 29,
wherein extracting the … lines of
the non-architectural element comprises
receiving identifications of the … lines of the non-architectural element.
(Bolded).
9.
34.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated nearly verbatim.)
10.
35.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
11.
36.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
12.
37.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
13.
38.
(After their preambles, these claims are repeated verbatim.)
17. The method of claim 1,
wherein
the 3D model comprises
a building object.
39. The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 29, wherein generating the 3D model comprises generating a 3D model of
the building object.
(Bolded).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rutzinger et al. (“DETECTION AND MODELLING OF 3D TREES FROM MOBILE LASER SCANNING DATA”, published 2010) discloses technique(s) for 3-D scanning a scene to create a point cloud including the capturing of tree(s) (non-architectural element), and geometric modeling of said trees.
Masuda et al. (“Development of ‘3D Measurement System’ Using Images Taken with a ‘FinePix REAL 3D W3’ 3D Digital Camera”, published 2012) discloses a technique for producing 3D measurements using stereo images (p. 38). Masuda et al. are silent regarding the generation of a 3-D model using specifically a non-architectural element.
Li et al. (“OPTIMIZING DETECTION OF ROAD FURNITURE (POLE-LIKE OBJECTS) IN MOBILE LASER SCANNER DATA”, published 2013) disclose the detection of ‘road furniture’ such as stop signs and lamp posts and their relative heights and areas. Li et al. do not disclose the generation of a 3-D model using specifically a non-architectural element.
Steedly et al. (U.S. PG-PUB 2009/0244062) discloses the construction of a 3-D textured mesh model, particularly a shed. Steedly et al. do not disclose generation of a 3-D model using a non-architectural element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN M COFINO whose telephone number is (303) 297-4268. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10A-4P MT.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at 571-272-7667. 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.
/JONATHAN M COFINO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights