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 Status
Claim 1-17 are pending.
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 15 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 claim 15 recites software per se. Claim 15 recites “a data processing system”. In order for the claimed “data processing system” to be statutory, at least one component within the system must be hardware. In view of the specification, all the elements of claim 15 can be reasonably interpreted as software alone. Therefore, the claim is directed to software per se and is non-statutory.
Claim 17 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 claim 17 recites transitory propagating signals per se. Claim 17 recites “a computer-readable medium” which the specification does not define as being strictly non-transitory. In view of this omission, the claimed “computer-readable medium” can be interpreted as covering both non-transitory tangible media AND transitory propagating signals per se. In re Nuijten (500 F.3d 1346), the Federal Circuit decided that "signals" are nonpatentable subject matter.
In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The following is Examiner's analysis of the claimed invention under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (PEG)
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. Claim 1 recites a process (method), claim 15 recites a machine (system), claim 16 recites a machine (computer program), claim 17 recites a manufacture (computer-readable medium).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 (and similar claims 15, 16, and 17) recites “meshing the space in meshing elements, wherein a relative position of a meshing element that has a relative spatial reference” which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “meshing a space” covers performance of the limitation in the mind; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 15, 16, and 17) recites “compressing the spatial reference to the relative spatial reference of the meshing element in which the spatial reference is located” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. The step of “compressing the spatial reference” corresponds to a mathematical relationship disclosed in the specification (Para 009, a more memory efficient representation of the spatial reference is obtained as the relatively memory intensive spatial reference, e.g. floating-point values such as longitude and latitude, are compressed to the more memory efficient relative spatial reference, i.e. integer values).
Claim 1 (and similar claims 15, 16, and 17) recites “compressing the plurality of attribute values to a plurality of respective numerical values according to respective attribute dictionaries comprising a mapping between attribute values and numerical values for a respective attribute type” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. A “mapping between attribute values and numerical values” is a mathematical relationship; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 (and similar claims 15, 16, and 17) recites “compressing the plurality of numerical values to a state value according to a state dictionary comprising a mapping between sets of numerical values and respective state values” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. A “a mapping between sets of numerical values and respective state values” is a mathematical relationship; therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. Claim 1 (and similar claims 15, 16, and 17) recites “wherein a respective spatial data record comprises a spatial reference within a space, and a plurality of attribute values of respective attribute types; parsing the spatial data records, comprising, for a respective spatial data record” which is mere necessary data gathering because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For the reasons above, claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected as being directed to nonpatentable subject matter under §101. This rejection applies equally to the dependent claims. The additional limitations of the dependent claims are addressed briefly below:
Regarding claim 2
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises generating the attribute dictionaries (325, 326) and/or the state dictionary” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 3
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein the attribute dictionaries (325, 326) further comprise a mapping between intervals of attribute values and numerical values, or between one or more characters and numerical values” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 4
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein meshing a space further comprises meshing the space in meshing elements having equal surface areas according to a predetermined resolution” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 5
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises, for a respective spatial data record, assigning the relative spatial reference and the state value to a data structure associated with the space for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the space” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 6
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises, if a size of the data structure associated with the space exceeds a size threshold, dividing a space into subspaces, and dividing the data structure associated with the space in data sub-structures associated with the respective subspaces for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the respective subspaces” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 7
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein dividing a space into subspaces further comprises:- meshing the respective subspaces in meshing elements, wherein a relative position of a meshing element within a subspace is characterized by that has a relative sub-spatial reference; updating the relative spatial references with the relative sub-spatial references; and- assigning the relative sub-spatial references and the state value to the data sub-structure” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 8
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein dividing a space into subspaces is performed according to a space portioning tree” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 9
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “obtaining relative sub-spatial references according to at least one lower resolution by aggregating meshing elements of the predetermined resolution” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 10
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “obtaining aggregated subspaces that include a predetermined number of meshing elements of the at least one lower resolution; and obtaining aggregated data structures associated with the aggregated subspaces for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the aggregated subspaces” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 11
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “generating the digest by rendering the numerical values of at least one attribute type on the meshing elements within the inspection space based on the relative spatial references” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “receiving a request for a digest of spatial data records located within an inspection space; fetching one or more data sub-structures associated with the subspaces that at least partially overlap with the inspection space”
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 12
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “determining a resolution for the digest based on the inspection space; selecting the predetermined resolution or the at least one lower resolution based on the determined resolution; and fetching, based on the selected resolution, one or more data sub- structures, or one or more aggregated data structures” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 13
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim inherits the abstract idea of the parent claim.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. The claim recites “wherein the request for a digest further comprises a selection of attribute types to be rendered; and wherein generating the digest is limited to rendering the attribute types included in the selection” which is mere necessary data gathering.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. The courts have determined mere data gathering to not be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (See CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 14
STEP 1 ls the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of matter? Yes. The claim recites a process (method).
STEP2A Prong one: Does The Claim Recite An Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon? Yes. The claim recites “wherein generating the digest further comprises decoding the state values of the compressed spatial data records to the plurality of numerical values based on the state dictionary” which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas.
STEP2A Prong two: Does The Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There is no indication that the elements of the claim, individually nor in
combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly
more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
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 1-5, 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyercha et al (US 20160004739 A1) hereafter Tyercha in view of Shi et al (US 20220377300 A1) hereafter Shi
Regarding claim 1, Tyercha teaches a computer implemented method for compressing spatial data records, wherein a respective spatial data record comprises a spatial reference within a space, and a plurality of attribute values of respective attribute types; the method comprising: parsing the spatial data records, comprising, for a respective spatial data record: compressing the spatial reference to the relative spatial reference of the meshing element in which the spatial reference is located (Para 0035, The dimensional dictionary is one of multiple dimensional dictionaries compressing a spatial data set); compressing the plurality of attribute values to a plurality of respective numerical values according to respective attribute dictionaries comprising a mapping between attribute values and numerical values for a respective attribute type (Para 0048, a column then results in two data structures: a dictionary, which maps the user-values to Value IDs, and a bit compressed vector with Value IDs representing the columns of the original table); and compressing the plurality of numerical values to a state value according to a state dictionary comprising a mapping between sets of numerical values and respective state values (Para 0048, the main bit compressed vectors are recreated by physically generating a new image of the bit compressed vector that includes the old entries (ignoring deletes) and new entries of the delta).
Tyercha does not appear to explicitly teach meshing the space in meshing elements, wherein a relative position of a meshing element that has a relative spatial reference.
In analogous art, Shi teaches meshing the space in meshing elements, wherein a relative position of a meshing element that has a relative spatial reference (Para 0074, the electronic device performs at least one time triangular mesh generation on the object image based on the feature point included in the object image with the contour of the object image as the boundary via the Delaunay triangulation interpolation algorithm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyercha to include the teaching of Shi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to compress spatial data, as taught by Shi (Para 0130, In response to acquiring the relevant data of the target object, the electronic device compresses the data, and stores the compressed data, that is, performing the process in 306 for example).
Regarding claim 2, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises generating the attribute dictionaries and/or the state dictionary (Tyercha, Para 0022, For example, in some high performance, in-main memory database systems, dictionary encoding of data can be used in data compression for non-spatial data).
Regarding claim 3, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches The computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein the attribute dictionaries further comprise a mapping between intervals of attribute values and numerical values, or between one or more characters and numerical values (Tyercha, Para 0022, For example, in some high performance, in-main memory database systems, dictionary encoding of data can be used in data compression for non-spatial data).
Regarding claim 4, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 1, wherein meshing a space further comprises meshing the space in meshing elements having equal surface areas according to a predetermined resolution (Tyercha, Para 0028, An area or volume defined in a data set containing spatial data can be decomposed into a mesh (e.g. a combination) of simplexes).
Regarding claim 5, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim, wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises, for a respective spatial data record, assigning the relative spatial reference and the state value to a data structure associated with the space for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the space (Tyercha, Para 0029, a dimensional dictionary can be created for each dimension (e.g., x, y, z, . . . values) of spatial data in a data set).
Regarding claim 9, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 4, further comprising obtaining relative sub-spatial references according to at least one lower resolution by aggregating meshing elements of the predetermined resolution (Tyercha, Para 0028, An area or volume defined in a data set containing spatial data can be decomposed into a mesh (e.g. a combination) of simplexes).
Regarding claim 10, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 9, further comprising obtaining aggregated subspaces that include a predetermined number of meshing elements of the at least one lower resolution; and obtaining aggregated data structures associated with the aggregated subspaces for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the aggregated subspaces (Tyercha, Para 0028, An area or volume defined in a data set containing spatial data can be decomposed into a mesh (e.g. a combination) of simplexes).
Regarding claim 11, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 6, further comprising: receiving a request for a digest of spatial data records located within an inspection space; fetching one or more data sub-structures associated with the subspaces
Regarding claim 12, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 9, wherein the fetching further comprises: determining a resolution for the digest based on the inspection space; selecting the predetermined resolution or the at least one lower resolution based on the determined resolution; and fetching, based on the selected resolution, one or more data sub-structures, or one or more aggregated data structures (Tyercha, Para 0028, An area or volume defined in a data set containing spatial data can be decomposed into a mesh (e.g. a combination) of simplexes).
Regarding claim 13, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 11, wherein the request for a digest further comprises a selection of attribute types to be rendered; and wherein generating the digest is limited to rendering the attribute types included in the selection (Tyercha, Para 0028, An area or volume defined in a data set containing spatial data can be decomposed into a mesh (e.g. a combination) of simplexes).
Regarding claim 14, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 11, wherein generating the digest further comprises decoding the state values of the compressed spatial data records to the plurality of numerical values based on the state dictionary (Tyercha, Para 0022, For example, in some high performance, in-main memory database systems, dictionary encoding of data can be used in data compression for non-spatial data).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyercha in view of Shi further in view of Rouet et al (US 20080094389 A1) hereafter Rouet
Regarding claim 6, Tyercha in view of Shi teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 5, as shown above. Tyercha in view of Shi does not appear to explicitly teach wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises, if a size of the data structure associated with the space exceeds a size threshold, dividing a space into subspaces, and dividing the data structure associated with the space in data sub-structures associated with the respective subspaces for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the respective subspaces.
In analogous art, Rouet teaches wherein parsing the spatial data records further comprises, if a size of the data structure associated with the space exceeds a size threshold, dividing a space into subspaces, and dividing the data structure associated with the space in data sub-structures associated with the respective subspaces for storing compressed spatial data records comprising a spatial reference located within the respective subspaces (Para 0005, The processing means create the tree-like tubular surface mesh from a tree-like object centerline. This centerline structure is divided into segments corresponding to the different parts of the tree-like tubular object). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyercha in view of Shi to include the teaching of Rouet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to represent spatial data using a meshing model, as taught by Rouet (Para 0001, The invention relates to an image processing system for automatic segmentation of a 3-D tree-like tubular surface of an object in a three-dimensional image, using 3-D deformable mesh models).
Regarding claim 7, Tyercha in view of Shi in view of Rouet teaches the computer implemented method according to claim 6, wherein dividing a space into subspaces further comprises:- meshing the respective subspaces in meshing elements, wherein a relative position of a meshing element within a subspace is that has a relative sub-spatial reference; updating the relative spatial references with the relative sub-spatial references; and assigning (405) the relative sub-spatial references and the state value (332) to the data sub-structure (Shi, Para 0074, the electronic device performs at least one time triangular mesh generation on the object image based on the feature point included in the object image with the contour of the object image as the boundary via the Delaunay triangulation interpolation algorithm). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyercha to include the teaching of Shi. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to compress spatial data, as taught by Shi (Para 0130, In response to acquiring the relevant data of the target object, the electronic device compresses the data, and stores the compressed data, that is, performing the process in 306 for example).
Regarding claim 8, Tyercha in view of Shi in view of Rouet teaches the computer-implemented method according to claim 6, wherein dividing a space into subspaces is performed according to a space portioning tree (Rouet, Para 0005, The processing means create the tree-like tubular surface mesh from a tree-like object centerline. This centerline structure is divided into segments corresponding to the different parts of the tree-like tubular object). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tyercha in view of Shi to include the teaching of Rouet. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to represent spatial data using a meshing model, as taught by Rouet (Para 0001, The invention relates to an image processing system for automatic segmentation of a 3-D tree-like tubular surface of an object in a three-dimensional image, using 3-D deformable mesh models).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm est.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights