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 .
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 2-8, 10-16 and 19-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 9, 4, 16, 20, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 13, 4, 15 and 18-19 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,299,871 to Nussbaum et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the issued patent anticipate the claims of the present application as the scopes are the same.
Present Application: 19/025,726 USPN: 12,299,871 to Nussbaum et al.
A method, comprising:
1.A method, comprising:
generating, by a computing device and based on first data points, a virtual model of a physical object, wherein: the first data points are associated with a surface of the physical object, and
causing a computing device to capture first data points associated with a surface of an object represented in a first virtual model;
the virtual model represents a portion of the physical object, including the surface;
generating, based at least in part on the first data points, a second virtual model in which at least a portion of the object, including the surface, is represented;
identifying, based on the virtual model, an area of the surface for which additional data is needed;
identifying, based at least in part on the first data points and using the second virtual model, an area of the surface for which additional data is needed;
causing, by the computing device, second data points to be captured, wherein the second data points correspond to the identified area of the surface;
causing the computing device to capture second data points associated with the area of the surface;
generating, by the computing device, an updated virtual model of the physical object based on the second data points; and
updating the second virtual model based on the second data points; and
identifying, by the computing device and based on a representation of the surface included in the updated virtual model, a damaged section of the physical object, the damaged section including the surface.
determining, based on the representation of the surface in the first virtual model and on the representation of the surface in the second virtual model, a damaged section of the object, the damaged section including the surface.
The claims are not identical, but are nearly identical in scope. A terminal disclaimer is required.
With regard to system claim 12 of the present invention and system claim 11 of patent 12,299,871, the discussion with regard to claim 2 of the present invention and claim 1 of the 12,299,871 patent also applies.
With regard to CRM claim 17 of the present invention and the CRM claim 17 of patent 12,299,871, the discussion with regard to claim 2 of the present invention and claim 1 of the 12,299,871 patent also applies.
Dependent claims 3-8, 10-16 and 19-21 are anticipated by claims 8, 9, 4, 16, 20, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 15, 13, 4, 15 and 18-19 respectively of USPN 12,299,871 to Nussbaum et al. The claims of the issued patent are either verbatim or near verbatim recitations of the limitations of the present application claims. The listed claims are also accordingly rejected under double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 are allowable if the Double Patenting rejection discussed above is overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest found prior art appears to be USPN 2017/0251143 to Peruch et al.
Peruch teaches a system for scanning 3D objects and determining if 3D data points are missing and in order to direct the user to scan areas of the object to obtain additional data (paragraphs [0049], [0078]-[0089] and [0089], [0106]-[0109] and Figs 4C and 7A).
However Peruch does not explicitly teach or suggest the specific process of step in the claim as recited in independent claims 2, 12 and 18:
causing a computing device to capture first data points associated with a surface of an object represented in a first virtual model;
generating, based at least in part on the first data points, a second virtual model in which at least a portion of the object, including the surface, is represented; identifying, based at least in part on the first data points and using the second virtual model, an area of the surface for which additional data is needed;
causing the computing device to capture second data points associated with the area of the surface;
updating the second virtual model based on the second data points; and
determining, based on the representation of the surface in the first virtual model and on the representation of the surface in the second virtual model, a damaged section of the object, the damaged section including the surface.
USPN 9,721,304 to Parchment is also relevant prior art. Parchment teaches 3D scanning of a vehicle in order to determine damage (column 3, lines 50-67, column 4, lines 1-16, and column 5, lines 15-35). Parchment teaches making a determination if enough image data has been gathered for the images and if not, the user is directed to gather more data (column 6, lines 17-53 and column 7, lines 21-34). However, Parchment does not disclose the recited limitations regarding identifying an area of the surface for which additional data is needed and updating virtual model to identified damaged section of the surface.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY J TUCKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7427. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM Monday-Friday.
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, JOHN VILLECCO can be reached on 571-272-7319. 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.
/WESLEY J TUCKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights