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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of European patent application number EP24163343 filed on 03/18/2024 has been received and made of record.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "substantially" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation
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 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) is/are:
“means for” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12 describes a computer product, it appears that said claims, taken as a whole, read on computer listings per se.
Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 13 specifies a computer readable medium. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and state-of-the-art at the time of invention, the full scope of “computer readable storage medium” covers both non-transitory tangible media (e.g., RAM, ROM, hard drive) and transitory propagating signals (e.g., carrier waves, signals) per se. Transitory propagating signals do not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and therefore must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.). The examiner suggests amending the claim to exclude transitory propagating signals, by adding a modifier, such as non-transitory to the claimed medium.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “more then one plane” should be “more than one plane” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 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(s) 1, 4-7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (ZHAIYU CHEN ET AL: "Reconstructing Compact Building Models from Point Clouds Using Deep Implicit Fields", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 26 September 2022 (2022-09-26), XP091322585) in view of US. PGPubs 2011/0074777 to Lima et al..
Regarding claim 1, Zhang et al. teach reconstruction method of a piecewise planar object representing an architectural shape of a building interior, based on a point cloud P acquired from said building interior, wherein said point cloud P comprises point normal information, comprising the steps of:
extracting initial planar primitives from said point cloud (section 3.1., page 7, "We partition the ambient 3D space to generate a linear cell complex that complies with planar primitives detected from the point cloud."),
extending said planar primitives as infinite planes, delineating a multitude
of polygonal volumes enclosed by said extended planar primitives (section 3.2, page 8, "We introduce an adaptive partitioning algorithm that adaptively subdivides the 3D space into a set of cells (i.e., a linear cell complex), where each cell is a convex polyhedron. Our algorithm partitions the space by extracting planes from the point cloud followed by BSP using the refined planar primitives. Specifically, we apply the RANSAC algorithm of Schnabel et al. (2007) to detect planes."),
classifying one of said polygonal volumes as an interior volume, on
condition that: the upper face of said polygonal volume has a substantially high point coverage (section 3.4., page 12, "With the cell complex and the occupancy of its cells obtained in the previous steps, surface reconstruction can be addressed by obtaining a consistent classification of the cells into interior and exterior categories, followed by an outer shell extraction step, as shown in Figure 8. We address the interior/exterior cell classification using a Markov Random Field (MRF) formulation."),
performing said classification on all of said polygonal volumes (section 3.4., page 12, "With the cell complex and the occupancy of its cells obtained in the previous steps, surface reconstruction can be addressed by obtaining a consistent
classification of the cells into interior and exterior categories, followed by an outer shell extraction step, as shown in Figure 8. We address the interior/exterior cell classification using a Markov Random Field (MRF) formulation."),and
concatenating all polygonal volumes that are classified as interior volumes
to form said piecewise planar object ( see e.g. figure 8 (b) ).
But Zhang et al. keep silent for teaching classifying one of said polygonal volumes as an interior volume, on condition that: the upper face of said polygonal volume has a substantially high point coverage and that the point normal directions of the points comprised in said upper face of said polygonal volume are oriented substantially in a same direction, or said polygonal volume is located below another polygonal volume that is classified as an interior volume.
In related endeavor, Lima et al. teach classifying one of said polygonal volumes as an interior volume, on condition that: the upper face of said polygonal volume has a substantially high point coverage and that the point normal directions of the points comprised in said upper face of said polygonal volume are oriented substantially in a same direction, or said polygonal volume is located below another polygonal volume that is classified as an interior volume (par 0050, par 0054-0056, “FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B illustrate one side of a volume whereby a simpler two dimensional example is viewed for binary-enumerated arrays 10 and 10A. In the binary-enumerated arrays 10 and 10A, data points 16 are exterior to volumes 18 and 18A. Points 14 are inside of the volumes 18 and 18A. Boundaries of surfaces 12 and 12A represent the dividing line or surface of the volumes 18 and 18A ….referring to data point 20 in FIG. 1A, the data point and all neighbors of the data point are zero. Therefore, the data point 20 is determined by the method to be exterior to the volume 18 and is not evaluated as a surface point of the volume. Likewise, data point 22 and all neighbors of the data point 22 are greater than zero. Thus, the data point 22 is determined or defined by the method as being interior to the volume 18 and is ignored for purposes of evaluating the surface of the volume”, par 0060, “The classification is made by comparing the location of the neighboring data points with each point. In other words, the method will detect that the coordinates of neighboring surface data points vary in three dimensions. Similarly, data points 38 will be considered as being edges bent in two dimensions because the neighboring data points have coordinates that are positioned in two different directions. Data points 40 are classified as being on a flat surface because the neighboring data points lay in the same plane”, par 0064, “The resultant intersected volume may then be normalized back to a simple enumerated volume and the surface evaluated and saved for future use. The intersections may then be treated as separate and distinct volumes”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. to include classifying one of said polygonal volumes as an interior volume, on condition that: the upper face of said polygonal volume has a substantially high point coverage and that the point normal directions of the points comprised in said upper face of said polygonal volume are oriented substantially in a same direction, or said polygonal volume is located below another polygonal volume that is classified as an interior volume as taught by Lima et al. to provide sufficient speeds of the process of expanding models of three dimensional volumes and/or computing the intersection region between different three dimensional volume models.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Zhang et al. further teach further comprising the initial step of: defining a polyhedron around said point cloud volume as a calculation boundary such that the faces of said polyhedron contribute to said initial planar primitives (Zhang et al.: section 3.2, “We introduce an adaptive partitioning algorithm that adaptively subdivides the 3D space into a set of cells (i.e., a linear cell complex), where each cell is a convex polyhedron. Our algorithm partitions the space by extracting planes from the point cloud followed by BSP using the refined planar primitives. Specifically, we apply the RANSAC algorithm of Schnabel et al. (2007) to detect planes. Considering noise and outliers in the data, we perform a refinement procedure that iteratively merges planes under specific proximity conditions (see Algorithm 3.1). During the partitioning, a binary tree structure is dynamically and locally updated upon insertion of a primitive, and the cell adjacency information is maintained. A typical space partitioning step is illustrated in Fig. 3.”).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, and further teach further comprising the step of defining a calculation boundary that is based on a room floor definition (Zhang et al.: section 3.1, “Our neural-guided approach for building reconstruction from point clouds utilizes the learned implicit representation as an occupancy indicator for extracting the final surface model. The indicator can be intuitively interpreted as a shape-conditioned binary classifier for which the decision boundary represents the outer surface of a building. With the learned implicit field, a compact surface model is extracted using an MRF formulation that accounts for reconstruction fidelity and compactness. Fig. 2 demonstrates the workflow of our neural-guided reconstruction framework that consists of three steps:”, Lima et al.: par 0013, “The processing comprises calculating smoothing parameters to smooth the 3D computer model in dependence upon a geometric property of different parts of the silhouettes, such as a curvature or width of the silhouette parts, calculating displacements to move surface points in the 3D computer model to positions closer to the projection of the silhouette boundaries in 3D space, and moving surface points in the 3D computer model in accordance with the smoothing parameters and displacements “, par 0053-0054, “FIG. 1A and FIG. 1B illustrate one side of a volume whereby a simpler two dimensional example is viewed for binary-enumerated arrays 10 and 10A. In the binary-enumerated arrays 10 and 10A, data points 16 are exterior to volumes 18 and 18A. Points 14 are inside of the volumes 18 and 18A. Boundaries of surfaces 12 and 12A represent the dividing line or surface of the volumes 18 and 18A”).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Zhang et al. further teach further comprising the step of optimizing said initial planar primitives based on domain knowledge features (Zhang et al.: section 3.2, “We introduce an adaptive partitioning algorithm that adaptively subdivides the 3D space into a set of cells (i.e., a linear cell complex), where each cell is a convex polyhedron. Our algorithm partitions the space by extracting planes from the point cloud followed by BSP using the refined planar primitives. Specifically, we apply the RANSAC algorithm of Schnabel et al. (2007) to detect planes. Considering noise and outliers in the data, we perform a refinement procedure that iteratively merges planes under specific proximity conditions (see Algorithm 3.1). During the partitioning, a binary tree structure is dynamically and locally updated upon insertion of a primitive, and the cell adjacency information is maintained. A typical space partitioning step is illustrated in Fig. 3.”).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Zhang et al. further teach further comprising the step of adding supplementary initial planar primitives based on domain knowledge features (section 4.1).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, and Zhang et al. further teach wherein said classification is performed starting from the highest located polygonal volumes of the building interior (section 3.1-3.4, classify surface of building structure with priority).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (ZHAIYU CHEN ET AL: "Reconstructing Compact Building Models from Point Clouds Using Deep Implicit Fields", ARXIV.ORG, CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, 201 OLIN LIBRARY CORNELL UNIVERSITY ITHACA, NY 14853, 26 September 2022 (2022-09-26), XP091322585) in view of US. PGPubs 2011/0074777 to Lima et al., further in view of WO2020/049112 to Coudron et al..
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, but keep silent for teaching wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of: detecting initial planar segments S={s,} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points si whose point normal directions are substantially identical, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane.
In related endeavor, Coudron et al. teach wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of: detecting initial planar segments S={s,} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points si whose point normal directions are substantially identical, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane (par 0062, “in the point cloud 100 shapes are identified 602 by extracting planar primitives from the input point cloud 100. To identify 602 or detect planar primitives in the three-dimensional point cloud 100, a random sample consensus (RANSAC) method may be used. Firstly, the point cloud 100 may be down sampled using a voxel grid filter at a resolution of, for example, 5cm. As a result, a set of planar patches P = {pd is obtained, wherein each patch comprises a set of points Pi which lie within a distance e: from a best fit plane through these points. Planar primitives identified or extracted from the point cloud 100 are illustrated in Fig. 2 by, for example, line 200 and plane 201.”, par 0079-0080, “The vertices of each edge are further lexicographically ordered, so for each face [;_ adjacent to an edge ej its direction can be determined with respect to this edge. Thus, functions (sign(x)i, ej) and (sign(x)in ej) are defined as follows: and:(sign(x)i, ej) 1 if ej and corresponding edge in xj have the same direction - -1 if ej and corresponding edge in xj have opposite directions (Eq.5), (Eq.6). Next, to ensure that each edge will have consistently oriented faces, the following constraint is defined: Vet L (sign(x)i, ej)- xi + (sign(x)ir, ej)- Xir = 0 fiEN(ej) (Eq.7), which implies that when a face is selected with the edge in one direction, another face should be selected with the edge in the opposite direction.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. to include wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of: detecting initial planar segments S={s,} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points si whose point normal directions are substantially identical, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane as taught by Coudron et al. to provide an improved solution for generating a spatial model of an indoor structure from a point cloud in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, but keep silent for teaching wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of detecting initial planar segments S={s} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points Si whose distances are smaller than a threshold t to said planar segment S, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane.
In related endeavor, Coudron et al. teach wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of detecting initial planar segments S={s} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points Si whose distances are smaller than a threshold t to said planar segment S, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane (par 0062, “in the point cloud 100 shapes are identified 602 by extracting planar primitives from the input point cloud 100. To identify 602 or detect planar primitives in the three-dimensional point cloud 100, a random sample consensus (RANSAC) method may be used. Firstly, the point cloud 100 may be down sampled using a voxel grid filter at a resolution of, for example, 5cm. As a result, a set of planar patches P = {pd is obtained, wherein each patch comprises a set of points Pi which lie within a distance e: from a best fit plane through these points. Planar primitives identified or extracted from the point cloud 100 are illustrated in Fig. 2 by, for example, line 200 and plane 201.”, par 0065-0067, “When the bounding box 300 is close to the edges of the point cloud 100, planes may be added to the set of planar patches as obtained in the previous step 602. For example, when the set of planar patches does not comprise a plane that is located within a predefined distance from a segment of the outer surface of the bounding box 300, the plane defining the segment of the bounding box 300 is added to the set of planar patches …..plane of the bounding box 300 may also be close to a plane of the set of planar patches, such that both planes may be considered as equal. To verify if a plane of the set is close to a plane of the bounding box, firstly angles between the detected planes and the bounding box planes are determined. Next, a plane having an angle with a plane of the bounding box lower than a predefined threshold 0tand comprising a predefined number of points nt lying on the bounding box plane is considered to be equal to the bounding box plane”, par 0071, “The set of selected structural faces may also comprise faces that were previously added when the set of planar patches does not comprise a plane that is located within a predefined distance from a plane of the bounding box 300.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. to include wherein extracting said initial planar primitives from said point cloud is performed by the steps of detecting initial planar segments S={s} from the point cloud P, wherein each initial planar segment S is defined as a collection of points Si whose distances are smaller than a threshold t to said planar segment S, and each of said points si cannot be assigned to more then one plane as taught by Coudron et al. to provide an improved solution for generating a spatial model of an indoor structure from a point cloud in an efficient manner.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, but keep silent for teaching a data-processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 1.
In related endeavor, Coudron et al. teach a data-processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 1 (claim 17).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. to include a data-processing apparatus comprising means for carrying out the method of claim 1 as taught by Coudron et al. to introduce a computer device to finish the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, but keep silent for teaching computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
In related endeavor, Coudron et al. teach a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (claim 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. to include a computer program product comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 as taught by Coudron et al. to program method claim 1 into program to let a computer device to finish the method of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. teach all the limitation of claim 1, but keep silent for teaching a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1.
In related endeavor, Coudron et al. teach a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (claim 19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing data of the claimed invention to modified Zhang et al. as modified by Lima et al. to include a computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 as taught by Coudron et al. to program method claim 1 into program and save to memory to let a computer device to finish the method of claim 1.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The cited prior art fails to teach the combination of elements recited in claim 8, including " further comprising the steps of removing a polygonal volume that is classified as an interior volume at an edge of said piecewise planar object, resulting in an updated piecewise planar object, on condition that said updated piecewise planar object has a higher point coverage than the original piecewise planar object".
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The cited prior art fails to teach the combination of elements recited in claim 9, including " further comprising the steps of adding a polygonal volume that is not classified as an interior volume at an edge of said piecewise planar object, resulting in an updated piecewise planar object, on condition that said updated piecewise planar object has a higher point coverage than the original piecewise planar object".
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2020/0027266 disclose generating building contours from point cloud data, Wherein the point cloud data is analyzed to identify one or more buildings and used in visualizations of building models.
US2016/0055268 disclose processing three-dimensional (3D) data through captured three-dimensional (3D) data associated with a 3D model of an architectural environment is received and at least a portion of the captured 3D data associated with a flat surface is identified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jin Ge whose telephone number is (571)272-5556. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Jason Chan can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
JIN . GE
Examiner
Art Unit 2619
/JIN GE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
