DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-23 are pending in the application. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,857 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 6-9 and 17-20 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.
Claim 6 recites: The system of claim 2, wherein receiving the first quality assessment further comprises providing an assessment for the suitability of the first image frame for constructing multi-dimensional building models.
Based on the claim as currently constructed, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to what is meant by “the suitability of the first image frame” (emphasis added). There is no mentioning of “the suitability” or any metric for determining “suitability within an image frame” as claimed in claim 2, nor claim 6 as currently constructed. Corrective action is required. Claim 7 depends on claim 6 and is rejected based on the same reasons. Claims 8 and 9 are rejected based on the same/similar reasons as rejected claims 6 and 7. Claim 8 claims, “the suitability of the second image frame”, however, as discussed above pertaining to claim 6, there is no mentioning of “the suitability” or any metric for determining “suitability within an image frame”. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is rejected based on the same reasons. Claims 17-20 follow the same pattern as rejected claims 6-9 respectively and are rejected based on the same reasoning/rationale pertaining to “the suitability” and “suitability within an image frame”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the suitability of the first image frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the suitability of the second image frame" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the suitability of the first image frame" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the suitability of the second image frame" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 17-20 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.
Claims 2-5, 10-16, and 21-23 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, “A computing system comprising:
memory;
one or more processors, capable of executing instructions to:
cause display, on an image capture device display, of a physical building within a first image frame at a first camera position;
cause display of a first overlay guide associated with the physical building within the first image frame at the first camera position;
receive a first quality assessment of the first image frame with respect to the first overlay guide; and
cause capture of a first image of the physical building based on the first quality assessment.”
The closest prior art of record relied upon is Castillo et al (US 12,348,857 B2), which discloses a system and method for capturing a image of a physical building with a graphical overlay guide of the physical building, receiving a quality assessment of the building and capturing an image based on the assessment. However, none of the prior art cited alone or in combination provides the motivation to teach the following claimed limitations, with emphasis that it is each claim, taken as a whole, including the interrelationships and interconnections between various claimed elements make them allowable over the prior art of record, cause display of a first overlay guide associated with the physical building within the first image frame at the first camera position, receive a first quality assessment of the first image frame with respect to the first overlay guide, and cause capture of a first image of the physical building based on the first quality assessment. Claims 3-5 and 10-12 depend from claim 2 and are thus allowable. Claim 13 recites the same/similar recitation as independent claim 2 above and is indicated allowable based on the same reasons. Claims 14, 15, and 21-23 depend from independent claim 13, and are thus indicated allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights