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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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 21, 31 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterberg et al. (CA-3172082-A1) in view of Wyatt et al. (US Patent No. 10997663-B1).
Osterberg discloses A method comprising: receiving, from a device, at least one of image data or depth sensor data about one or more physical objects located in a physical space; (Osterberg, description, discloses generating an object volume comprising the 3D coordinate, using the processing circuitry, by applying the obtained template volume to the 3D coordinate; and labelling the generated object volume, using the processing circuitry, by assigning the object label of the pre-labelled 3D coordinate to all 3D coordinates located within the generated object volume. The main advantage of embodiments presented herein is that labelled 3D data points can be acquired automatically, based on embodiments presented herein, based on information about a limited number of pre-labelled real world objects. Furthermore, the pre-labelled 3D data is acquired without requiring any further human interaction necessary after the 3D data has been collected. Specifically, the need for a human user labelling objects in captured 2D or 3D images, or in a subsequently generated virtual environment representing the real world area, Is removed or at least greatly reduced by embodiments presented herein. It is highly advantageous that a large number of 2D images can be achieved and used as training data for an Al, as explained further below. It is equally advantageous to use 3D images, 3D objects, 3D point clouds or other suitable 3D representations as training data for an Al, especially since the method and system according to the present invention provides a more time efficient and cost efficient way of labelling zo data than available prior art methods and systems. In other words, training data obtained by embodiments herein, in the form of 2D or 3D data, already comprises labelled training data. Especially compared to prior art methods and systems where a human expert labels objects in 2D or 3D images, or other suitable 3D representations, the inventive method and system now allows for the expert to label objects in a real world area where the human eye is better at distinguishing between similar objects than when the same expert looks at virtual representations of the real world area or objects from the real world area, in the form of captured virtual images or the like. This results in a more accurate labelling that significantly decreases errors in training data. This is especially useful when the differences between label classes (e.g. different species of trees, bushes or the like in the case of forest environments) are only slight and therefore cannot be easily differentiated in the virtual environment, neither by the human eye, nor by image processing; image or sensor data is captured of a space where physical objects such as trees exist)
identifying whether any of the one or more physical objects were impacted by the event by comparing at least the image data or the depth sensor data to a catalog of objects storing object data about the one or more physical objects; (Osterberg, Description, discloses object type without also having to be assessed for a total volume that should be associated with that specific object and also not with a shape within which that volume should be contained. For oblong objects such as trees or round objects such as mushrooms this means that labelling them as belonging to a given object type also allows for using a template volume that has information of a total volume that such objects should be associated with as well as their orientation and shape. Suitably, applying the obtained template volume to the prelabelled 3D coordinate further comprises scaling the template volume in relation to a determined size of the object. Thereby, it can be compensated for objects that differ in size from what can be expected of an object belonging to an object type, so that the template volume is usable also for objects that are smaller or larger than other similar objects; shape and size of objects are determined when shifted or changed to determine impact of an event in case if the shift happened)
Osterberg does not explicitly disclose determining whether an event occurred to the physical space where the one or more physical objects were located; assessing an impact of the event based at least in part on the one or more physical objects that are identified as having been impacted by the event; and causing an output indicating the impact of the event.
Wyatt discloses determining whether an event occurred to the physical space where the one or more physical objects were located; (Wyatt, Brief summary, discloses Event Based Proactive Customer Communication Portal. A system and method may predict storms before they hit, and once the weather event hits, the path of the storm may be analyzed to identify impacted insurance policy holders or home owners. Proactive notifications may be transmitted to insurance customers that may include a direct link embedded within to leads to an online portal associated with an insurance provider or other entity. The portal display post event images and data to assist the customers in initiating the claim process and ensure the resources are proactively displayed to assist customers from recovering from the unexpected; with insured's permission or affirmative consent, an insurance provider remote server may develop or build a data base that stores information about insured properties both pre-event and post-event to facilitate handling insurance claims. For instance, with the customer's permission, drone image data associated with an insured home may be gathered before, during, and after a weather event or catastrophe. The remote server may be configured to proactively notify customers as a potential weather event is being forecasted to assist them in preparing for the weather event; Weather events may include severe weather conditions, such as hurricanes, floods, and tornados. Other weather events may include wildfires and earthquakes; weather events to physical location is determined such as storm, fire or tornado etc. )
assessing an impact of the event based at least in part on the one or more physical objects that are identified as having been impacted by the event; and causing an output indicating the impact of the event. (Wyatt, Background, discloses Weather events may include severe weather conditions, such as hurricanes, floods, and tornados. Other weather events may include wildfires and earthquakes. These weather events may cause damage to property in an effected area. Damage to a residence may reduce a value of the residence, result in replacement costs for parts (e.g., broken windows), and/or increase insurance costs. In the event of a crisis or an emergency, such as, for example, any of these weather events, individuals who are not aware of the crisis or emergency event may need to be notified of the event; at least some known notification systems may notify a resident of an area that may be potentially impacted by weather events. However, these known notification systems may not provide advice on how to deal with the weather events (e.g., safe locations where an individual may go during or after the weather events, or how the individual can help protect a piece of property). Accordingly, individuals who receive notifications from these known systems may be unsure as to what to do, and/or where to go during or after the weather events. In addition, individuals that evacuate an area may not know if the property has been damaged by the weather events because these known systems are unable to provide post-weather updates regarding specific pieces of property; notifications received from these known systems may not be timely received (e.g., an individual may not receive the notification until during or after the weather event). For instance, an individual may not receive a severe weather watch or warning issued by the National Weather Service (NWS) until after the severe weather has passed. Accordingly, the individual may receive the notification too late for the notification to be useful for the individual; impact to physical properties such (objects) is determined by analyzing impact to the objects and damage and displayed as output)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Osterberg in view of Wyatt having a method of detecting objects in physical space and comparing its location and features with stored (cataloged) data as virtual object alignment to determine virtual object representation with the teachings of Wyatt having, by the training module, of comparing stored data with captured data to determine shift in its location to features of objects affected by events such as fire or storm or natural disasters in determination of damage to property or assets estimation to be covered by the insured assets.
Claims 31 and 37 recite system with elements and storage medium with
instructions corresponding to the method steps recited in Claim 21. Therefore, the
recited elements of the system claim 31 and instructions of storage medium claim 37 are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps of Claim 21. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Osterberg and Wyatt references presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to these claims.
Furthermore, the combination of Osterberg and Wyatt further discloses A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memory storing instructions that upon execution by the one or more processors, configure the system (Wyatt, XI. Additional Considerations, discloses a processor may include any programmable system including systems using micro-controllers, reduced instruction set circuits (RISC), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), logic circuits, and any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions described herein. The above examples are exemplary only, and are thus not intended to limit in any way the definition and/or meaning of the term “processor; the terms “software” and “firmware” are interchangeable, and include any computer program stored in memory for execution by a processor, including RAM memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, and non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) memory. The above memory types are exemplary only, and are thus not limiting as to the types of memory usable for storage of a computer program; a computer program is provided, and the program is embodied on a computer readable medium. In an exemplary embodiment, the system is executed on a single computer system, without requiring a connection to a server computer. In a further embodiment, the system is being run in a Windows environment (Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash.). In yet another embodiment, the system is run on a mainframe environment and a UNIX® server environment (UNIX is a registered trademark of X/Open Company Limited located in Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom). The application is flexible and designed to run in various different environments without compromising any major functionality. In some embodiments, the system includes multiple components distributed among a plurality of computing devices. One or more components may be in the form of computer-executable instructions embodied in a computer-readable medium. The systems and processes are not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. In addition, components of each system and each process can be practiced independent and separate from other components and processes described herein. Each component and process can also be used in combination with other assembly packages and processes).
Furthermore, the combination of Osterberg and Wyatt further discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing instructions that upon execution on a system, cause the system to perform operations(Wyatt, XI. Additional Considerations, discloses a processor may include any programmable system including systems using micro-controllers, reduced instruction set circuits (RISC), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), logic circuits, and any other circuit or processor capable of executing the functions described herein. The above examples are exemplary only, and are thus not intended to limit in any way the definition and/or meaning of the term “processor; the terms “software” and “firmware” are interchangeable, and include any computer program stored in memory for execution by a processor, including RAM memory, ROM memory, EPROM memory, EEPROM memory, and non-volatile RAM (NVRAM) memory. The above memory types are exemplary only, and are thus not limiting as to the types of memory usable for storage of a computer program; a computer program is provided, and the program is embodied on a computer readable medium. In an exemplary embodiment, the system is executed on a single computer system, without requiring a connection to a server computer. In a further embodiment, the system is being run in a Windows environment (Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Wash.). In yet another embodiment, the system is run on a mainframe environment and a UNIX® server environment (UNIX is a registered trademark of X/Open Company Limited located in Reading, Berkshire, United Kingdom). The application is flexible and designed to run in various different environments without compromising any major functionality. In some embodiments, the system includes multiple components distributed among a plurality of computing devices. One or more components may be in the form of computer-executable instructions embodied in a computer-readable medium. The systems and processes are not limited to the specific embodiments described herein. In addition, components of each system and each process can be practiced independent and separate from other components and processes described herein. Each component and process can also be used in combination with other assembly packages and processes).
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 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims ((1,4), 19, (1,4), 17, 19, 14, 20, 19, 14, 19, (1,4), 14, (1,4), 19, 19, 14, (1,4), 19, (1, 4), 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12087054 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are directed to identifying impact of an event to the physical objects determined by data captured and processed by physical device or sensors. The difference between current application and cited patent is *******. Therefore, the claim 1 is broader in scope in comparison to the cited patent and therefore rejected accordingly.
Current Application
US Patent No. 12087054 B2
Claim 21. A method comprising: receiving, from a device, at least one of image data or depth sensor data about one or more physical objects located in a physical space;
determining whether an event occurred to the physical space where the one or more physical objects were located;
identifying whether any of the one or more physical objects were impacted by the event by comparing at least the image data or the depth sensor data to a catalog of objects storing object data about the one or more physical objects;
assessing an impact of the event based at least in part on the one or more physical objects that are identified as having been impacted by the event; and
causing an output indicating the impact of the event.
Claim 1. A method comprising: receiving, from a first device, first data about a physical object located in a physical space, the first data generated by the first device while the first device is in the physical space;
determining, based on the first data, the physical object;
storing, in a catalog of objects generated for the physical space, information about the physical object and indicating at least a first location of the physical object in the physical space;
receiving, from a second device, second data about the physical space, the second data sent from the second device upon or after an occurrence of an event, the second device being the same as or different from the first device;
determining, based on the second data, at least an impact area of the event to the physical space; determining a location association between the impact area and the first location; determining, based on the catalog of objects and the location association, whether the physical object is impacted by the event; and
causing an output indicating that the physical object is impacted by the event if the physical object is determined to be impacted by the event.
Claim 4, wherein storing the information in the catalog of objects comprises storing a three-dimensional model of the physical object based on the first data.
Claim 22
Claim 19
Claim 23
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 24
Claim 17
Claim 25
Claim 19
Claim 26
Claim 14
Claim 27
Claim 20
Claim 28
Claim 19
Claim 29
Claim 14
Claim 30
Claim 19
Claim 31
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 32
Claim 14
Claim 33
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 34
Claim 19
Claim 35
Claim 19
Claim 36
Claim 14
Claim 37
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 38
Claim 19
Claim 39
Claims 1 and 4
Claim 40
Claim 14
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 31 and 37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. non-statutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action and claims 22-30, 32-26, 38-40 to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jacob et al. (US Patent No. 10121241 B1, A computer-implemented method for assessing a building structure. The method includes receiving information indicative of captured data, the captured data comprising an image of the building structure. The method includes receiving information indicative of an analysis of the captured data. The method includes based on the analysis of the captured data, performing an assessment of the one or more examined regions. Performing the assessment includes determining one or more classifications each corresponding to a different one of the one or more examined regions, and determining one or more indicators each corresponding to a different one of the one or more classifications. The method includes determining a mapping of the one or more indicators to the one or more examined regions. The method includes providing for display the one or more indicators overlaid onto the image according to the determined mapping, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PINALBEN V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-5872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10am - 8pm.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at 571-272-9752. 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.
/Pinalben Patel/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights