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 .
Status of claims: claims 1-17 are pending below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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: “an obtaining module configured to” in claim 9, “a determining module configured to” in claim 9, “a calculating module configured to” in claim 9, “a registration module configured to” in claim 9.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because reciting “a machine-readable storage medium” where a review of the specification of the instant invention detail paragraph 0179 does not exclude signal which is view as on-statutory subject matter. Please amend to “non-transitory computer readable medium” to overcome rejection or direct to support paragraph to overcome rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kurtz et al (US 2017/0219336).
Claim 1, similarly claims 9 and 10:
Kurtz et al (US 2017/0219336) anticipated the following subject matter:
A point cloud registration method based on plane fitting comprising steps of:
obtaining a source point cloud and a to-be-registered point cloud (0069 detail reference coordinate system (source point) with to point clouds; figure 5 parts 504, 510, 514 and 0093-0096 detail first point cloud 104a and second point cloud 104b and reference 514);
determining two source planes in the source point cloud and two to-be-registered planes in the to-be-registered point cloud, wherein the two source planes are not parallel to each other, and the two to-be-registered planes are not parallel to each other (figure 5 and 0093-0096 detail two point clouds in 504 and 510, with two references un 516, where 0079, 0083, 0087 detail the adjustment of X-axis, Y-axis and Z coordinate values to be parallel, such means these point clouds are not parallel);
calculating a rotation matrix based on the two source planes and the two to-be-registered planes, and obtaining a translation vector based on the source point cloud and the to-be- registered point cloud (figures 6-7 and 0074 detail registering and translating to be align to common reference system illustrated in figure 7); and
rotating and translating the to-be-registered point cloud according to the rotation matrix and the translation vector, to realize a registration between the to-be-registered point cloud and the source point cloud (figure 6-7 and 0074; figure 5 and 093-0097 detail aligned to reference coordinate (registering)).
Regarding claim 9, Kurtz et al addresses apparatus in figure 1 and 0007.
Regarding claim 10, address non-transitory computer media in paragraph 0006.
Claim 5, similar claim 14:
The point cloud registration method based on plane fitting according to claim 1, wherein the source plane comprises a first source plane and a second source plane, and the to-be- registered plane comprises a first to-be-registered plane and a second to-be-registered plane,
wherein the step of calculating the rotation matrix based on the two source planes and the two to-be-registered planes comprises (figure 5):
calculating the rotation matrix under a first registration mode when the first to-be- registered plane corresponds to the first source plane, and the second to-be-registered plane corresponds to the second source plane (figure 5 part 514 and paragraph 0069-0074, specifically 0071 with each, first and second point clouds, registered to reference/source);
calculating the rotation matrix under a second registration mode when the second to-be- registered plane corresponds to the first source plane, and the first to-be-registered plane corresponds to the second source plane (above teaches rotation and translation, where figure 4 and 0081-0084 where cross registration between first and second); and
determining a final rotation matrix from rotation matrices under the first registration mode and the second registration mode (figure 4 part 540 and 0085 detail where the entire clouds are orienting/aligned/adjusted/registered (entire is final)).
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.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurtz et al (US 2017/0219336) in view of Uhlenbrock et al (US 2019/0392595).
Claim 8, similarly 17:
Kurtz et al teaches all the subject matter above but not the following which is taught by Uhlenbrock et al (US 2019/0392595) teaches:
The point cloud registration method based on plane fitting according to claim5, wherein the step of rotating and translating the to-be-registered point cloud according to the rotation matrix and the translation vector comprises: in a case of the first registration mode, obtaining normal vectors of the first to-be- registered plane and the first source plane, respectively; calculating an axis of rotation and an angle of rotation according to the normal vector of the first to-be-registered plane and the normal vector of the first source plane; and rotating and translating the first to-be-registered plane and the second to-be-registered plane according to the axis of rotation, the angle of rotation, and the translation vector (0026 detail rotation and translation to align point count to register to reference; 0046 further detail consideration of normal vector to particular implementation for best fit plane for the points. The planes/axis and changes are the angle regarding for all the adjustments, rotation and translation, for different planes of each point cloud to register.).
Kurtz et al and Uhlenbrock et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially registering point cloud with rotation and translation such that the combine outcome is predictable.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Kurtz et al by Uhlenbrock et al regarding using of normal vector where such particular implementation for best fit plane for the points as disclosed by Uhlenbrock et al in 0046.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, and dependent claims 3-4, 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. At the time of examination, the closest analogous art Medioni et al (US 2013/0286012) teaches in the field of registering point clouds with rotation and translation in 0064 with brief mention of parallel consideration in 0094 as well as largest eigenvectors. This is not view as the claim invention and concept.
Claim 6, and dependent claim 7, 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. At the time of examination, the closest analogous art Mannion et al (US 2015/0261184) teaches in the field of registering point clouds with rotation and translation in 0059-0062 with mention of error consideration in 0064, but do not detail the segmented way of different types of errors disclosed by the instant invention. This is not view as the claim invention and concept.
Claim 11, and dependent claims 12-13, 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. At the time of examination, the closest analogous art Medioni et al (US 2013/0286012) teaches in the field of registering point clouds with rotation and translation in 0064 with brief mention of parallel consideration in 0094 as well as largest eigenvectors. This is not view as the claim invention and concept.
Claim 15, and dependent claim 16, 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. At the time of examination, the closest analogous art Mannion et al (US 2015/0261184) teaches in the field of registering point clouds with rotation and translation in 0059-0062 with mention of error consideration in 0064, but do not detail the segmented way of different types of errors disclosed by the instant invention. This is not view as the claim invention and concept.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jia et al (US 2023/0052072) teaches Point Cloud Registration Method, Apparatus, Device And Storage Medium - acquiring target point cloud data; dividing the target point cloud data into a plurality of point cloud sets; determining a coincidence degree between every two point cloud sets and determining a fixed point cloud set and a registration point cloud set from two point cloud sets with a coincidence degree between the two point cloud sets being greater than a preset threshold; determining a target registration matrix between the fixed point cloud set and the registration point cloud set; and performing registration of the fixed point cloud set with the registration point cloud set according to the target registration matrix (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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.
/TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights