Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is a non-final office action on the merits, claims 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to a method, system and computer program product. These are all statutory classes of invention. Step 1 Yes
The examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim.
Here the limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity and therefore a fundamental economic practice.
generating an aggregate point cloud from two or more point clouds; selecting a set of points by sampling the aggregate point cloud; determining a threshold based on a distance for the set of points; determining a potentially damaged object associated with a point cloud based on a comparison between points in the point cloud, the sampled set of points associated with the aggregate point cloud, and the threshold; and displaying a report indicating at least the potentially damaged object associated with the point cloud.
Accordingly the claim recites an abstract idea. The computer components of claim 1 are currently not present. Claim 10 includes a processor and memory, and claim 15 does not include any technical elements.
Here applying generic computers to a recited abstract limitations does not necessarily preclude a claim from reciting an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 16 are abstract for similar reasons.
Step 2A prong 1 Yes, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements, none specifically.
The computer hardware/software are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly these additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. Therefore claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. Step 2A prong 2 No the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to sufficiently more. They do not add significantly more also known as inventive concept.
Applicant specification includes elements that tie the invention to roof analysis and damage, 0021 (3D scanner etc.)
Thus claims 1, 10 and 16 are not patent eligible Step 2B no the claims do not provide significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20 are rejected because they depend on claims 1, 10 and 16. Therefor the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-11,13-16,18-20 are/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Collins 20090265193 in view of US Patent to Medasani 8537338
As per claim 1, Collins discloses;
generating an aggregate point cloud from two or more point clouds;
selecting a set of points by sampling the aggregate point cloud;
determining a threshold based on a distance for the set of points; determining a potentially damaged object associated with a point cloud based on a comparison between points in the point cloud,
Collins (0099 compare roof data with data from the past to determine damage assessments)
the sampled set of points associated with the aggregate point cloud, and the threshold; and displaying a report indicating at least the potentially damaged object associated with the point cloud.
Collins (0096, damage report 0102, roofs can be compared between damaged and non damaged)
Here in regards to the concept of “point clouds” Medasani teaches this concept in col 5. (Lines 10-40)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the point clouds of Medasani with the roof damage disclosure of Collins for the motivation of finding details by automation, to “detect features of road like objects”, Medasani(col 2 lines 50-60)
Claims 10 and 16 are similar to claim 1.
As per claims 2, 11 Collins does not explicitly disclose what Medasani teaches;
The method of claim 1, wherein the distance is a mean nearest-neighbor distance.
(Col. 6 lines 15-30 Medasani, neighboring gaussians are compared)
The motivation for the combination would be similar to that for claim 1.
As per claims 13 and 18 Collins does not disclose what Medasani teaches; The method of claim 1, wherein the threshold is a scaled number of standard deviations away from a mean.
Medasani discloses gaussian distribtuions col. 6, according to AI/google, these are associated with Std. deviations) The motivation for combination would be similar to that proposed for claim 1.
As per claims 6, 14 and 19 Collins discloses;
The method of claim 1, wherein the aggregate point cloud corresponds to a plurality of shingles.
Collins (0045) shingles in view of Medasani – point cloud col. 5.
The motivation for combination would be similar to that provided for claim 1.
As per claims 7, 15 and 20 Collins discloses roof analysis techniques; Collins discloses roof analysis 0010, ie shingles. However Collins does not explicitly disclose point clouds which Medesani teaches;
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the two or more point clouds corresponding to two or more shingles. Medasani(re point clouds),
The motivation for combination would be similar to that for claim 1.
As per claim 8 Collins does not explicitly disclose what Medasani teaches;
The method of claim 1, further comprising aligning the two or more point clouds along one or more reference points.
Medasani(Col. 9 lines 1-30, col. 5 lines 15-25, re: alignment of point clouds)
The motivation for combination would be similar to that for claim 1.
As per claim 9 Collins does not explicitly disclose what Medasani teaches;
The method of claim 8, wherein the one or more reference points include a center point associated with each of the two or more point clouds.
Medasani(Col. 6 lines 40-45, center point for point clouds col. 5)
The motivation for combination would be similarto that for claim 1.
Claims 3,4,12,17 are/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Collins 20090265193 in view of US Patent to Medasani 8537338 further in view of US Patent Publication W02013096704 to Crain
As per claims 3, 12 and 17 Collins and Medasani do not explicitly disclose what Crain teaches;
The method of claim 1, wherein sampling the aggregate point cloud includes utilizing a voxel grid to down sample the set of points. Crane(0291, voxel grid)
It would therefore have been obvious to combine the roofs of Collins and the point clouds of Medasani with the Voxel grid of Crane for the motivation of making “3 dimensional models” Crane (0021)
Claim 4 is similar to claims 3, 12 and 17 in regards to Voxel grid disclosure.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure from IP.com.
Procedural Generation of Multistory Buildings With Interior, IEEE 2020
Procedural Generative Design for Spatial Layout Planning Using Hexagonal Cellular Automata IEEE, 2024
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693
