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 20-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejection(s) set forth in this Office action, or by timely-filing an approved terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 20, the prior art of record does not teach, suggest, or disclose “scale the 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element in the … image(s)” in combination with the other recited limitations. The Examiner notes that essentially similar claim language (‘scaling the 3D model based on the … dimension(s) associated with the non-architectural element in the … image(s)’) was cited in the ‘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).
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 20-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, and 8-17 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 18/956,807
Differences Explained (Bolded)
Claim 1. A method of
scaling a three-dimensional (3D) scene, the method comprising:
Claim 20. A system for
scaling a three-dimensional (3D) scene, the system comprising: a processor configured to:
Method => System. The remaining limitations are essentially the same, with some conjugation of verbs.
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising matching …
Claim 21. The system of claim 20, wherein the processor is further configured to match …
The remaining limitations are repeated verbatim.
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, … in the at least one image.
Claim 22. The system of claim 21, …
The intervening limitations are repeated verbatim.
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, …
Claim 23. The system of claim 20, …
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein extracting the
…
Claim 24. The system of claim 20, wherein extracting the
plurality of boundaries of the
…
The remaining limitations are repeated verbatim.
Claim 9.
Claim 25.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 10.
Claim 26.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 11.
Claim 27.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 12.
Claim 28.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 13. The method of claim 1, further comprising
extracting …
Claim 29. The system of claim 20, wherein the processor is further configured to
extract …
The remaining limitations are repeated verbatim.
Claim 14.
Claim 30.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 15.
Claim 31.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Claim 16. The method of claim 15, further comprising calculating …
Claim 32. The system of claim 31, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate
The remaining limitations are repeated verbatim.
Claim 17.
Claim 33.
Only the preambles (method => system) differ.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
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. is 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) discloses 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