DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as filed on December 24, 2024 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claim recites limitation “a surface” in sixth line of the claim, but the limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is referring to same surface recited in sixth thru seventh lines of the claim, or to a surface. Therefore, Examiner suggests the limitation should be amended, without adding new matter, in a manner that resolves the indefiniteness issue.
Claim Interpretation – 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may
be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of
structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover
the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for
performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in
support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,
material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “an acquisition unit configured to” recited in second line of claim 1 is considered to read on acquisition unit 11 (pgs. 3 and 6, paragraphs[0011] and [0019] respectively; 11 FIG. 1); and “an generation unit configured to” recited in fourth line of claim 1 is considered to read on generation unit 12 (pg. 3, paragraph[0011]; 12 FIG. 1).
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 limitation(s) “an acquisition unit configured to” and “a generation unit configured to” recited in second line and fourth line, respectively of the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In particular, no structure or material that is capable of performing the claimed functions are present or shown in any of the figures and substantively linked to the claimed function. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Accordingly, any claim(s) dependent on claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, based at least on same above reasoning.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0335409 A1 (hereinafter Yamamoto).
Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: an acquisition unit configured to acquire an image including a specific object as a subject (10 and 40; 41, 42, 46, 48 FIGS. 1-5, paragraph[0035] of Yamamoto teaches FIG. 4 is a schematic functional block diagram showing an example of an image processing apparatus according to the embodiment; and this image processing apparatus 40 is equipped with a camera 41, an image capturing section 42, a 3D model generation section 43, a partial area generation section 44, an output section 45, a partial area image capturing section 46, a reflection model generation section 47, a texture image generation section 48, a highlight detection section 49, and a notification section 50, and See also at least ABSTRACT, and paragraphs[0021]-[0023], [0033]-[0034], [0036], and [0038]-[0041] of Yamamoto (i.e., Yamamoto teaches an image processing apparatus that includes a camera and imaging capturing section for capturing input image of an object as well as images from a plurality of viewpoints and a selected angle)); and
a generation unit configured to generate a three-dimensional model of the specific object, based on the image acquired by the acquisition unit, information indicating a shape according to the specific object, and an angle at which a surface of each portion of the specific object is captured (101, 103, 109, and 202 FIGS. 1-5, paragraph[0033] of Yamamoto teaches next, FIG. 3 shows a state wherein a target object 2, a three-dimensional model of which is to be created, is photographed from the circumference thereof; the user photographs the object 2 from various positions and angles by moving the camera module 12 (the electronic device 10) around the circumference of the object 2; the three-dimensional model generation program 202 generates three-dimensional model data corresponding to the object 2 using images captured by the photographing; the three-dimensional model generation program 202 can create an excellent three-dimensional model having no missing portions because the surface of the object 2 is photographed without omission; and the electronic device 10 notifies the user of the position (angle) at which the object 2 should be photographed next if necessary by means of vibration generated from the vibration module 14, sound output from the speakers 18A and 18B, information displayed on the screen of the LCD 17A, etc, and See also at least ABSTRACT, and paragraphs[0021]-[0023], [0034]-[0036], and [0038]-[0060] of Yamamoto (i.e., Yamamoto teaches a processor that executes a three-dimensional model generation program, which is loaded from a hard disk drive onto main memory, that generates three-dimensional model data which corresponds to and indicates the three-dimensional shape of the object using images captured by the camera that photographs the object including the surface of the object at a selected angle in order to create a three dimensional model from the images captured from the plurality of viewpoints)).
Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto teaches an information processing method comprising: acquiring an image including a specific object as a subject (FIGS. 1-5, paragraph[0035] of Yamamoto teaches FIG. 4 is a schematic functional block diagram showing an example of an image processing apparatus according to the embodiment; and this image processing apparatus 40 is equipped with a camera 41, an image capturing section 42, a 3D model generation section 43, a partial area generation section 44, an output section 45, a partial area image capturing section 46, a reflection model generation section 47, a texture image generation section 48, a highlight detection section 49, and a notification section 50, and See also at least ABSTRACT, and paragraphs[0021]-[0023], [0033]-[0034], [0036], and [0038]-[0041] of Yamamoto (i.e., Yamamoto teaches an image processing apparatus that includes a camera and imaging capturing section for capturing input image of an object as well as images from a plurality of viewpoints and a selected angle)); and
generating a three-dimensional model of the specific object, based on the acquired image, information indicating a shape according to the specific object, and an angle at which a surface of each portion of the specific object is captured (FIGS. 1-5, paragraph[0033] of Yamamoto teaches next, FIG. 3 shows a state wherein a target object 2, a three-dimensional model of which is to be created, is photographed from the circumference thereof; the user photographs the object 2 from various positions and angles by moving the camera module 12 (the electronic device 10) around the circumference of the object 2; the three-dimensional model generation program 202 generates three-dimensional model data corresponding to the object 2 using images captured by the photographing; the three-dimensional model generation program 202 can create an excellent three-dimensional model having no missing portions because the surface of the object 2 is photographed without omission; and the electronic device 10 notifies the user of the position (angle) at which the object 2 should be photographed next if necessary by means of vibration generated from the vibration module 14, sound output from the speakers 18A and 18B, information displayed on the screen of the LCD 17A, etc, and See also at least ABSTRACT, and paragraphs[0021]-[0023], [0034]-[0036], and [0038]-[0060] of Yamamoto (i.e., Yamamoto teaches a processor that executes a three-dimensional model generation program, which is loaded from a hard disk drive onto main memory, that generates three-dimensional model data which corresponds to and indicates the three-dimensional shape of the object using images captured by the camera that photographs the object including the surface of the object at a selected angle in order to create a three dimensional model from the images captured from the plurality of viewpoints)).
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 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, because for each of claims 2-5 the prior art references of record do not teach the combination of all element limitations as presently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3128. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDUL-SAMAD A ADEDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights