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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “The system of claim 14… the at least two points are averaged along their rays…”, and it should be “The system of claim 15…” because claim 14 doesn’t explain how to obtain rays.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12299784. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12299784 defines a machine-implemented method for extracting a floor plan from an imperfect floor plan scan composed of known line segments, comprising: using a processor to generate a more-optimized floor plan; displaying, by a user device with 3-D depth scanner and a 2-D camera, the more-optimized floor plan; receiving feedback indicative of accuracy of the more-optimized floor plan by use of the 3-D depth scanner and the 2-D camera; in response to the feedback, using the processor to adjust the more-optimized floor plan based on the feedback; wherein receiving feedback indicative of accuracy of the floor plan comprises receiving a wall marking from a reading from the 3-D depth scanner and the 2-D camera, the wall marking comprising multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D, the wall marking indicated on the user device by a user; wherein the processor processes the multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D to determine a directed line segment, and wherein the directed line segment is added to the known line segments; and wherein the processor processes the multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D to determine a directed line segment further comprises using both depth scanner measurements and camera measurements to determine an average of the multiple positions and the multiple orientations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to notice claim 1, 10 and 17 in current application and claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12299784 are almost identical, and claim 1, 10 and 17 in current application are much broader. All the claims are essentially the same structure and perform essentially the same function, therefore unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Claim in Application 19039536
Claim in Patent 12299784
1. A machine-implemented method for extracting a floor plan from an imperfect floor plan scan composed of known line segments, comprising:
using a processor to generate a more-optimized floor plan;
1. A machine-implemented method for extracting a floor plan from an imperfect floor plan scan composed of known line segments, comprising:
using a processor to generate a more-optimized floor plan;
displaying, by a user device with 3-D depth scanner and a 2-D camera, the more-optimized floor plan;
displaying, by a user device with 3-D depth scanner and a 2-D camera, the more-optimized floor plan;
receiving a mark from a user screen on the user device indicative of accuracy of the more-optimized floor plan; and
receiving feedback indicative of accuracy of the more-optimized floor plan by use of the 3-D depth scanner and the 2-D camera;
in response to the mark, using the processor to adjust the more-optimized floor plan based on the mark
in response to the feedback, using the processor to adjust the more-optimized floor plan based on the feedback;
wherein receiving feedback indicative of accuracy of the floor plan comprises receiving a wall marking from a reading from the 3-D depth scanner and the 2-D camera, the wall marking comprising multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D, the wall marking indicated on the user device by a user;
wherein the processor processes the multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D to determine a directed line segment, and wherein the directed line segment is added to the known line segments; and
wherein the processor processes the multiple positions and multiple orientations of a location in 2-D and 3-D to determine a directed line segment further comprises using both depth scanner measurements and camera measurements to determine an average of the multiple positions and the multiple orientations
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 1, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs U.S. Patent Application 20150227645 in view of Larsson non-patent literature titled “A study on the use of ARKit to extract and geo-reference floor plans”.
Regarding claim 10, Childs discloses a system for extracting a floor plan from an imperfect floor plan scan, the system comprising:
a memory (storage device 504);
a processor (central processing unit (CPU) (microprocessor) 512) in operable communication with the memory, and
the processor configured to for extracting a floor plan from an imperfect floor plan scan composed of known line segments (paragraph [0006]: interior modeling software engine which is stored on and executed by the mobile computing device, and which interacts with the gyroscope and camera to allow a user to quickly and conveniently take measurements of interior building features (such as dimensions, locations of corners, etc.), and to create computerized (digital) floor plans of such features from any location within a space; paragraph [0040]: FIG. 6B shows a dotted line 86 that could appear while the user captures the second corner of a wall), comprising;
using the processor to generate a more-optimized floor plan (paragraph [0006]: The present invention relates to a system and method for generating computerized floor plans… interior modeling software engine which is stored on and executed by the mobile computing device, and which interacts with the gyroscope and camera to allow a user to quickly and conveniently take measurements of interior building features (such as dimensions, locations of corners, etc.), and to create computerized (digital) floor plans of such features from any location within a space);
displaying, by a user device, the more-optimized floor plan (paragraph [0032]: A user could input data (via the mobile computing device, a remote computing system, etc.) identifying the wall length for any wall. The interior modeling software could then invoke the mobile computing device's 10 camera functionality, such that when the mobile computing device's 10 camera lens faces the first wall, an image of the first wall appears on the mobile device's display screen);
receiving a mark from a user screen on the user device indicative of accuracy of the more-optimized floor plan; and in response to the mark, using the processor to adjust the more-optimized floor plan based on the mark (paragraph [0063]: FIG. 19, the floor plan (or polygon) 410 is corrected by adjusting corner 404 such that actual vector 408 of the first wall matches the expected vector 406 of the first wall. This problem could be corrected by scanning through the wall segments, detecting the problem angle (e.g., problem corner) and correcting the angle. The system could also check the corners which have been flagged as "potential problem" corners and make corrections where necessary; paragraph [0006]: The system presents the user with a graphical user interface that allows a user to quickly and conveniently delineate wall corner features using a reticle displayed within the user interface. Using the reticle, the user can identify and mark each corner of the interior of a room in sequence... the system processes the corner information and information from the gyroscope to calculate wall features (e.g., dimensions such as length) and creates a floor plan of the space with high accuracy).
Childs discloses all the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. However, Childs fails to disclose a user device with a-3-D depth scanner and a 2-D camera.
Larsson discloses a user device with a-3-D depth scanner and a 2-D camera (page 38, 6.2.4: IPhone was chosen because it was the only phone that included a LiDAR module allowing for far more accurate depth readings; page 1, 1.2 problem description: Apple’s ARKit framework, camera system, inertial sensors and their new Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensor, a digital 3D representation of an environment can be created; page 41, Alignment with reference points: The raycast is based on information from the LiDAR module to judge the depth).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Child’s to use depth sensor as taught by Larsson, to generate accurate floor plan effectively.
Claim 1 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 10 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 10 applies to the method steps of claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 10 as medium steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 10 applies to the medium steps of claim 17.
Claim 2-5, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs U.S. Patent Application 20150227645 in view of Larsson non-patent literature titled “A study on the use of ARKit to extract and geo-reference floor plans”, and further in view of Segev U.S. Patent Application 20210073449.
Regarding claim 11, Childs as modified by Larsson discloses all the features with respect to claim 10 as outlined above. However, Childs as modified by Larsson fails to disclose receiving a mark from a user screen comprises receiving a mark indicating presence of a wall explicitly.
Segev discloses receiving a mark from a user screen comprises receiving a mark indicating presence of a wall (paragraph [0126]: a user may need to manually define room contours. Examples of manual definition of room contours may include marking the contours on a floor plan using a drawing tool, selecting the walls that constitute the contours of the room; paragraph [0866]: rooms walls marked on them as polylines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs and Larsson’ to mark wall as taught by Segev, to maximize the chances that customized equipment will be installed in the correct rooms, at the correct locations, and with the correct settings.
Regarding claim 12, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev discloses the system of claim 11, receiving a mark from a user screen comprises receiving input from a user (Segev’s paragraph [0126]: a user may need to manually define room contours. Examples of manual definition of room contours may include marking the contours on a floor plan using a drawing tool, selecting the walls that constitute the contours of the room; Childs’ paragraph [0006]: The system presents the user with a graphical user interface that allows a user to quickly and conveniently delineate wall corner features using a reticle displayed within the user interface. Using the reticle, the user can identify and mark each corner of the interior of a room in sequence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs and Larsson’ to mark wall as taught by Segev, to maximize the chances that customized equipment will be installed in the correct rooms, at the correct locations, and with the correct settings.
Regarding claim 13, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev discloses the system of claim 12, further comprises turning the mark into a two-dimensional line segment (Segev’s paragraph [0126]: a user may need to manually define room contours. Examples of manual definition of room contours may include marking the contours on a floor plan using a drawing tool, selecting the walls that constitute the contours of the room; paragraph [0825]: rooms may include walls represented by line segments within certain proximity to one another, and which may be parallel to each other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs and Larsson’ to mark wall as taught by Segev, to maximize the chances that customized equipment will be installed in the correct rooms, at the correct locations, and with the correct settings.
Regarding claim 14, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev discloses the system of claim 13, further comprises mapping the two-dimensional line segment onto a three-dimensional grid associated with the more-optimized floor plan (Segev’s paragraph [0698]: A 2D floor plan and the building information model may be positioned such that a 3D model objects “spring” from 2D objects which represented them... the 3D walls may appear to start in 2D lines and grow from them towards the positive “z direction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs and Larsson’ to mark wall as taught by Segev, to maximize the chances that customized equipment will be installed in the correct rooms, at the correct locations, and with the correct settings.
Claim 2 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 11 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 11 applies to the method steps of claim 2.
Claim 3 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 12 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 12 applies to the method steps of claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 13 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 13 applies to the method steps of claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 14 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 14 applies to the method steps of claim 5.
Regarding claim 18, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev discloses the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 17, wherein the imperfect floor plan scan comprises line segments, and further comprising using the processor to generate a more-optimized floor plan comprises: for each line segment within known line segments, extending the line segment by a known amount creating an extended line segment associated with the line segment with a same orientation, and creating a second line segment of a second size perpendicular to and touching the line segment (Segev’s paragraph [0707]: the input may include instructions to add, delete, move or extend individual walls within the model; paragraph [0709]: geometric analysis may include checking the sill candidates for intersection with walls; paragraph [0336]: a ResNet might classify an arrangement of sets of transversely intersecting lines as corners of a room; paragraph [0698]: A 2D floor plan and the building information model may be positioned such that a 3D model objects “spring” from 2D objects which represented them... the 3D walls may appear to start in 2D lines and grow from them towards the positive “z direction.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs and Larsson’ to mark wall as taught by Segev, to maximize the chances that customized equipment will be installed in the correct rooms, at the correct locations, and with the correct settings.
Claim 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childs U.S. Patent Application 20150227645 in view of Larsson non-patent literature titled “A study on the use of ARKit to extract and geo-reference floor plans”, in view of Segev U.S. Patent Application 20210073449, and further in view of Vicenzotti U.S. Patent Application 20170316573.
Regarding claim 15, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev discloses all the features with respect to claim 14 as outlined above. However, Childs as modified by Larsson and Segev fails to disclose mapping the two-dimensional line segment onto the three-dimensional grid comprises for at least one point in the two-dimensional line segment, transform the at least one point into a ray with a third dimension tail that intersects the three-dimensional grid.
Vicenzotti discloses mapping the two-dimensional line segment onto the three-dimensional grid comprises for at least one point in the two-dimensional line segment, transform the at least one point into a ray with a third dimension tail that intersects the three-dimensional grid (paragraph [0079]: The three-dimensional reconstruction process is described above with reference to FIG. 1 and maps from the two-dimensional reference frame to the three-dimensional reference frame using the various matrices and the inverse projecting rays that are indicated in FIG. 5C by dashed lines and which intersect at the first and second feature points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Childs, Larsson and Segev’ to using rays as taught by Vicenzotti, to provide position measurements without relying on the use of specific markers.
Claim 6 recites the functions of the apparatus recited in claim 15 as method steps. Accordingly, the mapping of the prior art to the corresponding functions of the apparatus in claim 15 applies to the method steps of claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-9, 16 and 19-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 (depends on claim 6) and 16 (depends on claim 15) are about the at least two points are averaged along their rays to determine a flattened 2-D line segment.
Childs 20150227645, Larsson non-patent literature titled “A study on the use of ARKit to extract and geo-reference floor plans”, Segev 20210073449 and Vicenzotti 20170316573 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 19 (depends on claim 18) is about creating a cost graph comprising a vertex set and an edge set, wherein the vertex set comprises vertices representing a midpoint of each line segment, and wherein the edge set comprises edges, each edge comprising an intersection within a set of possible intersections, a starting vertex of the intersection, an ending vertex of the intersection and a cost, wherein the cost includes length from the starting vertex to the ending vertex and aesthetic costs.
Childs 20150227645, Larsson non-patent literature titled “A study on the use of ARKit to extract and geo-reference floor plans”, and Segev 20210073449 combined cannot teach these features perfectly. These limitations when read in light of the rest of the limitations in the claim and the claims to which it depends make the claim allowable subject matter.
Claim 8-9 depends on claim 7, are allowed base on same reason as claim 7.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, are allowed base on same reason as claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yi Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-9589. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on 571-272-7642. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YI YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights