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
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from Foreign Application No. JP2020-081971, filed May 7, 2020 and as a Continuation of a PCT Application No. PCT/JP2021/016627, filed June 26, 2021.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 12, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 are pending. Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new grounds of rejection, presented in the 35 USC 103 rejections below. Applicant argues that the Holzer reference does not teach the newly added limitation “based on a distance between the structure feature region and the detected damage”. However, as described below, the newly presented Wang reference teaches selecting a damage based on a distance between damage mark boxes and damage prediction points (i.e., distance between a detected damage and a structure feature region) (see Wang, Para. [0050]). Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is upheld.
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Holzer reference does not teach “detecting a structure feature region related to detected damages”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the 35 USC 103 rejections below, Holzer teaches identifying the object or object component included in the image (i.e., the damaged object) (see Holzer, Para. [0096]). Applicant is reminded that the description is not read into the claims. As such, Examiner asserts that Holzer is sufficient to teach the limitation because the “structure feature region related to detected damages” can be interpreted as the damaged object based on broadest reasonable interpretation. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is upheld.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holzer teaches a damage evaluation device of a structure, the device comprising:
a processor (Holzer, Para. [0335], a processor (CPU)),
wherein the processor is configured to:
perform image acquisition processing of acquiring a captured image of the structure (Holzer, Para. [0070], an image is selected for damage aggregation analysis. Para. [0072], selecting an image for analysis may involve capturing an image. Capturing the image of the object may involve receiving data from one or more of various sensors);
perform feature region detection processing of detecting a structure feature region related to the detected damages based on the acquired image (Holzer, Para. [0096], the method in Fig. 2 may include one or more operations other than those shown in Fig. 2. For example, the damage detection operation discussed may include one or more procedures for identifying the object or object component included in the selected image. Such a procedure may include, for instance, a neural network trained to identify object components);
perform damage detection processing of detecting damages of the structure based on the acquired image (Holzer, Para. [0073], damage to the object is detected. Damage may be detected by applying a neural network to the selected image. The neural network may identify damage to the object included in the image);
perform selection processing of selecting a specific damage related to the detected structure feature region among the detected damages (Holzer, Para. [0073], the damage information may identify the damage type and/or severity. For example, the damage information may identify damage as being light, moderate, or severe. As another example, the damage information may identify the damage as a dent or a scratch);
wherein the feature region detection processing is executed by a second trained model that, in a case where the image is input, outputs the structure feature region as a recognition result (Holzer, Para. [0096], the damage detection operation discussed may include one or more procedures for identifying the object or object component (i.e., structure feature region) included in the selected image. Such a procedure may include, for instance, a neural network trained to identify object components).
Although Holzer teaches storing the damage information (Holzer, Para. [0094]), Holzer does not explicitly teach the processor is configured to “perform information output processing of outputting information about the selected specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Takayama teaches display image 900 that displays the detected regions 501-505 (i.e., cracks) and sets them as unit regions in the target image (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer with the teachings of Takayama by including outputting information about the selected specific damage by displaying areas indicated as including a crack feature. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for automatic detection technology for automatically detecting a defect region of a structure, as recognized by Takayama. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama teaches selecting a specific damage related to the detected structure feature region among the detected damages (Holzer, Para. [0073]), they do not explicitly teach the selection is “based on a distance between the structure feature region and the detected damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Wang teaches the target damage mark box (i.e.., selected damage) is determined based on a distance between a first damage prediction point (i.e., structure feature region) and the center of each damage mark box (i.e., detected damage). The damage mark box corresponding to the shortest distance is used as the target damage mark box (i.e., selected damage) (Wang, Para. [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama with the teachings of Wang by including selecting a detected damage based on a distance to the center of the damage from a first prediction point (i.e., a structure feature region). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for intelligent damage recognition, as recognized by Wang. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 2, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the damage detection processing is executed by a first trained model that, in a case where the image is input, outputs a region of each damage for each damage of the structure as a recognition result (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9, display image 900 that displays the detected regions 501-505 (i.e., cracks) and sets them as unit regions in the target image).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 2 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 2 is met by Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 16, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to:
perform editing instruction reception processing of receiving an editing instruction for at least one of a detection result of the detected damages or a detection result of the detected structure feature region from an operation unit operated by a user (Takayama, Para. [0069], the accepting unit accepts an instruction for correcting the detection result in response to a user operation); and
perform editing processing of editing the detection result in accordance with the received editing instruction (Takayama, Para. [0079], Takayama teaches the correction unit performing the correction process such as by deleting the unit regions one by one (deletion instruction) or the correction unit may delete the unit regions in an order according to the instruction).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 16 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 16 is met by Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 17, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein in the information output processing, the information about the specific damage is output and displayed on a display (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9, display image 900 that displays the detected regions 501-505 (i.e., cracks) and sets them as unit regions in the target image) or is stored in a memory as a file (Holzer, Para. [0094], the damage information is stored on a storage device).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references presented in the rejection of Claim 1, apply to Claim 17 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the device recited in Claim 17 is met by Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang.
Claim 19 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Holzer, Takayama and Wang references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Holzer, Para. [0007], non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Gross (US 2015/0186953 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, and further teaches:
wherein the damages of the structure are cracks of the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059], detected regions 501 to 505 in the target image are regions that actually include cracking and for which the detection result is correct).
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “the specific damage is a specific crack that occurs because of the construction of the structure among the cracks of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gross teaches an automated tool for property assessment identifying structure attributes or elements including body structural impairments such as foundation cracks (Gross, Paras. [0059]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Gross by including detecting foundation cracks as the specific damage detected. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for automated processing of specific structural information for a structure, as recognized by Gross. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Powell (US 4958306 A).
Regarding claim 5, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches detecting a structure feature region (Holzer, Para. [0096]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the structure feature region is a region showing a construction mark related to a specific crack that is the specific damage occurring because of the construction of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Powell teaches determining if features are longitudinal cracks, transverse cracks, alligator cracks, D cracks, potholes, or the like, wherein a “D” crack 97 is a crack at the boundary of the pavement with a seam or joint 100 (Powell, Col. 10 line 63-Col. 11 line 3; Fig. 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Powell by including that the structure feature region is a pavement seam or joint at the boundary of a crack (i.e., region showing a construction mark related to a specific crack). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would provide a pavement inspection device for classifying pavement distress features, as recognized by Powell. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 10783643 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein in the selection processing, a damage in contact with the structure feature region or a damage overlapping with the structure feature region is selected as the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Zhang teaches an overlapping region between the damage mark boxes B and C (i.e., damage overlapping with the structure feature region), where damage b is more severe than damage c, and the damage type b is chosen for the pixel in the overlapping region (i.e., selected as the specific damage) (Zhang, Col. 9, lines 61-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Zhang by including selecting the damage in and overlapping region as the specific damage. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for an improved solution for accurately recognizing a damaged object from a picture, as recognized by Zhang. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1) and Zhang (US 10783643 B1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sivakumar (US 2021/0343039 A1, filed May 4, 2020).
Regarding claim 7, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Zhang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 6, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Zhang teaches selecting a damage overlapping with the structure feature region as the specific damage (Zhang, Col. 9 lines 61-65), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the selection processing includes expansion processing of expanding a size of the structure feature region, and a damage in contact with the structure feature region after the expansion processing or a damage overlapping with the structure feature region after the expansion processing is selected as the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Sivakumar teaches an expansion process wherein if the AI engine does not identify the feature in certain frames, it may expand the search of the frames to a larger frame location threshold until the feature or change in the feature is identified in another frame (Sivakumar, Para. [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Zhang with the teachings of Sivakumar by including expanding the location of searching for the feature and then determining an overlap between the feature and the structure feature region. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for expanding the detection of a specific damage, as recognized by Sivakumar. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Mohamed Shibly (US 2021/0340857 A1, filed April 29, 2020).
Regarding claim 8, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the processor is configured to: perform size specification processing of specifying a size of the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Mohamed Shibly teaches a system that can estimate the size of each identified crack (Mohamed Shibly, Para. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Mohamed Shibly by including specifying a size of the specific damage (i.e., crack). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for predicting the propagation of cracks, as recognized by Mohamed Shibly. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1) and Mohamed Shibly (US 2021/0340857 A1, filed April 29, 2020), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gross (US 2015/0186953 A1) and Ding (CN 105486234 A, machine translation used in rejection below).
Regarding claim 9, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 8, and further teaches:
wherein the damages of the structure include cracks of the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059], detected regions 501 to 505 in the target image are regions that actually include cracking and for which the detection result is correct).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang and Mohamed Shibly references presented in the rejection of Claim 8, apply to Claim 9 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Shibly teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “the specific damage is a specific crack that occurs because of the construction of the structure among the cracks of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gross teaches an automated tool for property assessment identifying structure attributes or elements including body structural impairments such as foundation cracks (Gross, Paras. [0059]-[0064]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly with the teachings of Gross by including detecting foundation cracks as the specific damage detected. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for automated processing of specific structural information for a structure, as recognized by Gross.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Shibly and Gross teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “in the size specification processing, a relative length between a length of the specific crack on the image and a length of the structure feature region on the image is calculated, and the calculated relative length is used as the size of the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ding teaches placing a reference object (such as a circle) of actual size Lmn millimeters in the vicinity of a target object and taking a photo. Then, by measuring the pixels in the image and using the actual size of the reference object, calculating the length of the target object (Ding, Paras. [0026]-[0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross with the teachings of Ding by including determining the relative length of the specific crack by using the length of the structure feature region as a reference. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for measuring the crack in an image without previously knowing it’s length. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 10, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Shibly teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 8, and further teaches:
wherein the damages of the structure include cracks of the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059], detected regions 501 to 505 in the target image are regions that actually include cracking and for which the detection result is correct).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang and Mohamed Shibly references presented in the rejection of Claim 8, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “the specific damage is a specific crack that occurs because of the construction of the structure among the cracks of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gross teaches an automated tool for property assessment identifying structure attributes or elements including body structural impairments such as foundation cracks (Gross, Paras. [0059]-[0064]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang, Mohamed Shibly, and Gross references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “in the size specification processing, an actual size of the specific damage is calculated based on a length of the specific crack on the image, a length of the structure feature region on the image, and an actual size of the structure feature region”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ding teaches placing a reference object (such as a circle) of actual size Lmn millimeters in the vicinity of a target object and taking a photo. Then, by measuring the pixels in the image and using the actual size of the reference object, calculating the length of the target object (Ding, Paras. [0026]-[0037]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang, Mohamed Shibly, Gross, and Ding references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 10 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the claimed invention is met by Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly, Gross, and Ding.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1) and Mohamed Shibly (US 2021/0340857 A1, filed April 29, 2020), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gross (US 2015/0186953 A1) and Nonaka (US 2018/0300867 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 8, and further teaches:
wherein the damages of the structure include cracks of the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059], detected regions 501 to 505 in the target image are regions that actually include cracking and for which the detection result is correct),
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang and Mohamed Shibly references presented in the rejection of Claim 8, apply to Claim 11 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “the specific damage is a specific crack that occurs because of the construction of the structure among the cracks of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gross teaches an automated tool for property assessment identifying structure attributes or elements including body structural impairments such as foundation cracks (Gross, Paras. [0059]-[0064]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang, Mohamed Shibly, and Gross references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross teaches system that can estimate the size of each identified crack (Mohamed Shibly, Para. [0041]), they do not explicitly teach “the structure having a scale reference of a known actual dimension is captured in the image, and in the size specification processing, an actual size of the specific damage is calculated based on a length of the specific crack on the image and a length of the scale reference on the image”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nonaka teaches generating a scale image representing scales for length measurement of a crack (Nonaka, Para. [0068]) and teaches estimating the length of the crack based on the scale image (Nonaka, Para. [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross with the teachings of Nonaka by including a scale used to measure the length of a crack. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for obtaining a size of a foundation crack, as recognized by Nonaka. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1) and Mohamed Shibly (US 2021/0340857 A1, filed April 29, 2020), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Gross (US 2015/0186953 A1) and Karube (US 2019/0308230 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 8, and further teaches:
wherein the damages of the structure include cracks of the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059], detected regions 501 to 505 in the target image are regions that actually include cracking and for which the detection result is correct).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang and Mohamed Shibly references presented in the rejection of Claim 8, apply to Claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Mohamed Shibly teaches detecting cracks in the structure (Takayama, Para. [0059]), they do not explicitly teach “the specific damage is a specific crack that occurs because of the construction of the structure among the cracks of the structure”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Gross teaches an automated tool for property assessment identifying structure attributes or elements including body structural impairments such as foundation cracks (Gross, Paras. [0059]-[0064]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang, Mohamed Shibly, and Gross references presented in the rejection of Claim 9, apply to Claim 12 and are incorporated herein by reference.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross teaches system that can estimate the size of each identified crack (Mohamed Shibly, Para. [0041]), they do not explicitly teach “in the size specification processing, an actual size of the specific damage is calculated based on a length of the specific crack on the image and an imaging condition and camera information of a camera capturing the image”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Karube teaches measuring the length and width of a crack from the number of pixels and resolution (i.e., imaging condition and camera information) (Karube, Para. [0006] and Para. [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang, Mohamed Shibly and Gross with the teachings of Karube by including determining a size of the crack based on the length of the crack and the number of pixels and resolution (i.e., imaging condition and camera information). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for determining the actual size of the damage. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Nogami (US 2020/0118263 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches displaying the detected cracks (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein in the information output processing, each specific damage is identifiably output in accordance with an attribute of the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nogami teaches upon obtaining an input image, the information processing device outputs a defect detection result (crack detection result) and attribute information (a crack width) of the defect (Nogami, Para. [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Nogami by including outputting the specific damage with an attribute of the specific damage. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for useful display of information from concrete inspection, as recognized by Nogami. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 14, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches displaying the detected cracks (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein in the information output processing, the structure feature region corresponding to the specific damage is identifiably output in accordance with an attribute of the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Nogami teaches displaying the input image in the display device with the position where the crack is detected, the width of the crack, and information indicating the ROI superimposed thereon (Nogami, Para. [0145]).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Holzer, Takayama, Wang and Nogami references presented in the rejection of Claim 13, apply to Claim 14 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in Claim 14 is met by Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Nogami.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Van Heesch (US 2014/0363072 A1) and Honda (US 2019/0206047 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches displaying the detected cracks (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the processor is configured to: calculate a ratio of a total number of the structure feature regions and the number of the structure feature regions corresponding to the specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Van Heesch teaches a defectivity that is defined as the ratio of the number of defects (i.e., structure feature regions corresponding to the specific damage) to the total number of grid points per unit area of a cell of a grid (i.e., total number of structure feature regions) (Van Heesch, Para. [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Van Heesch by including determining a ratio of the number of structure feature regions corresponding to the specific damage to a total number of structure feature regions. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for determining useful data regarding the damage detection result, as recognized by Van Heesch.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Van Heesch teaches a defectivity ratio (Van Heesch, Para. [0129]), they do not explicitly teach “in the information output processing, the calculated ratio is output”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Honda teaches a parameter table that displays the defect extraction parameters and the defect capture ratio (i.e., defectivity ratio) (Honda, Para. [0116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang and Van Heesch with the teachings of Honda by including displaying or outputting a table with the calculated ratio. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for providing information regarding the damage detection results to the user, as recognized by Honda. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzer (US 2020/0236343 A1) in view of Takayama (US 2020/0134350 A1) further in view of Meng Wang (US 2020/0357111 A1), as applied to claims 1-2, 16-17 and 19-20 above, and further in view of Maresca et al. (US 9488592 B1).
Regarding claim 18, Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches the damage evaluation device according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang teaches displaying the detected cracks (Takayama, Paras. [0070]-[0072]; Fig. 9), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the information about the specific damage includes a damage quantity table that has items of damage identification information, a damage type, and a size and in which information corresponding to each item is described for each specific damage”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Maresca teaches a summary report that is generated for each inspection conducted that includes a table listing any detected damage and includes the type, location, and size of the flaw, and the flow and coverage maps (Maresca, Col. 19, lines 30-39).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Holzer in view of Takayama further in view of Wang with the teachings of Maresca by including a damage quantity table listing the detected damages including type, location, and size of each damage. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for a concise report of the damage detection results, as recognized by Maresca. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662