DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 19 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 19 are rejected.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 9 and claim 18, line 9 recite “display information about one or more types” and “displaying information about one or more types”, respectfully, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “display information for one or more types” and “displaying information for one or more types”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5, line 5 recites “display the information about the access means for accessing”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “display the information for the access means for accessing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7, line 5, claim 10, line 5 recites “displaying the information about the access means”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “displaying the information for the access means”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10, line 6 recites “displayed information about the access means”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “displayed information for the access means”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15, line 6 recites “display the information about the access means”, but it is recommended the phrase is amended to recite “display the information for the access means”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 3, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 3 claims a device, considered a system, so this claim falls within the statutory category of a system.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 3 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
3. The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 2,
wherein the memory stores an image of the structure associated with the three-dimensional model, and
the processor is configured to:
detect a damage from the image; and
automatically receive the designation of the inspection position based on the detected damage.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “detect a damage from the image” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person, while viewing a computer or using pen and paper, could mentally observe an image to judge where damage is located.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer components.
In particular, the claim recites memory storing an image of the structure, a processor, and automatically receive the indication of the position of the inspection. Regarding memory storing an image, and a processor, these are terms to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms processor and memory simply add generic computer components to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. In particular, storing image does not add a meaningful limitation to detecting the damage from the image. MPEP 2016.05(f).
In addition, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of automatically receive the designation of the inspection position based on the detected damage is amounts to mere data gathering in conjunction with the detecting the damage from an image. Simply receiving the result of the judicial exception of evaluating and judging where the damage is located on an image does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). There are no additional steps making these features meaningful limitations on the claim.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and merely data gathering. Reciting a generic processor and memory, as well as receiving the result of the evaluation and judgement of detecting the location of damage on an image regarding a structure does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 3 does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 9, applying step 1, the preamble of claim claims a device, considered a system, so this claim falls within the statutory category of a system.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 9 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
9. The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 7,
wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate at least one of a required time for each inspection position or a required time for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the required unit inspection time information; and
display the calculated required time.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “calculate at least one of a required time for each inspection position or a required time for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the required unit inspection time information” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person, while viewing a computer or using pen and paper, could mentally perform the calculation of how much time it takes to perform the inspection.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer components.
In particular, the claim recites a processor and displaying the calculated inspection expense, which are terms to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term processor simply adds generic computer components to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). In addition, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of displaying the calculated inspection expense simply adds that a display is used to view the results of the calculations performed, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). There are no additional steps making these features meaningful limitations on the claim.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Reciting a generic processor, as well as displaying the calculations performed, are merely steps of using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 9 does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 12, applying step 1, claim 12 claims a device, considered a system, so this claim falls within the statutory category of a system.
In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 12 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
The claim recites:
12. The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 10,
wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate at least one of an inspection expense for each inspection position or an inspection expense for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the expense information; and
display the calculated inspection expense.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “calculate at least one of an inspection expense for each inspection position or an inspection expense for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the expense information” is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. The limitation, as drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, but for the recitation of computer components or a generic computer. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). For example, a person, while viewing a computer or using pen and paper, could mentally perform the calculation of how much an inspection costs based on how the inspection is performed and where the inspection is located on the structure or structures.
Under Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations outside the abstract idea only present insignificant extra-solution activity and generic computer components.
In particular, the claim recites a processor and displaying the calculated inspection expense, which are terms to merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the term processor simply adds generic computer components to an abstract idea, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). In addition, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the recitation of displaying the calculated inspection expense simply adds that a display is used to view the results of the calculations performed, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2016.05(f). There are no additional steps making these features meaningful limitations on the claim.
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered to be use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Reciting a generic processor, as well as displaying the calculations performed, are merely steps of using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination, claim 12 does not amount to significantly more.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 3, 9, and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 9 and 13 - 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charvat et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0312028 A1), hereinafter “Charvat”, and further in view of Liu et al (“Image-Based Crack Assessment of Bridge Piers Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Three-Dimensional Scene Reconstruction”), hereinafter “Liu”.
As per claim 1, Charvat discloses:
an inspection support device of a structure, comprising a processor configured to acquire a three-dimensional model of a structure that is an inspection target (Charvat, par [0046] discloses using received information from A UAV to construct a 3D model of a property, with information including areas of interest.)
and accessible range information of a plurality of types of access means for accessing an inspection position of the structure (Charvat, par [0075] discloses structure measurement capabilities of the UAV, including measuring distances on structures, dimensions and distances of defects, and additional dimensional measurements, with par [0082] adding imaging features of a UAV at measured distances from the structure during an inspection.)
display the three-dimensional model on a display unit (Charvat, par [0005] discloses using a display device to show the three-dimensional virtual model.)
Charvat does not expressly disclose:
receive a designation of the inspection position on the displayed three-dimensional model; and
display information about one or more types of the access means for accessing the inspection position on the display unit based on the received inspection position and the accessible range information.
Liu however discloses:
receive a designation of the inspection position on the displayed three-dimensional model (Liu, page 515, left column, lines 2 - 5 discloses flight paths for the UAV to inspect bridge pier sections, with page 515, left col, ln 15 - 17 and FIG. 7 shows a circular path for the UAV, and page 516, left col, ln 13 - 15 adds a different shape of a path for the UAV in FIG. 8.)
display information about one or more types of the access means for accessing the inspection position on the display unit based on the received inspection position and the accessible range information (Liu, page 523, lines 11 - 12 through right col, ln 1 - 5 discloses crack projection and crack information provided on the 3D surface model in FIG. 28, which includes an inspection area indicated on the model of the bridge pier, with page 516, right col, ln 18 - 26 adds the working distance for images taken using cameras on UAVs.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat with the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu. The motivation to do so would have been because Liu discloses the benefit of the ability to correct a perspective and geometry distortion on nonflat surfaces in crack images after projection (of the cracks onto the model) to provide corrected crack objects in real and original 3D shape, with an accurately calculated crack width after the correction (Liu, page 527, right col, ln 8 - 14).
As per claim 18, Charvat discloses:
an inspection support method of a structure using an inspection support device of a structure including a processor (Charvat, par [0086] discloses an inspection system for a structure including a processor and data storage device.)
the method causing the processor to execute a step of acquiring a three-dimensional model of a structure that is an inspection target (Charvat, par [0046] discloses using received information from A UAV to construct a 3D model of a property, with information including areas of interest.)
and accessible range information of a plurality of types of access means for accessing an inspection position of the structure (Charvat, par [0075] discloses structure measurement capabilities of the UAV, including measuring distances on structures, dimensions and distances of defects, and additional dimensional measurements, with par [0082] adding imaging features of a UAV at measured distances from the structure during an inspection.)
a step of displaying the three-dimensional model on a display unit (Charvat, par [0005] discloses using a display device to show the three-dimensional virtual model.)
Charvat does not expressly disclose:
a step of receiving a designation of the inspection position on the displayed three-dimensional model; and
a step of displaying information about one or more types of the access means for accessing the inspection position on the display unit based on the received inspection position and the accessible range information.
Liu however discloses:
a step of receiving a designation of the inspection position on the displayed three-dimensional model (Liu, page 515, left column, lines 2 - 5 discloses flight paths for the UAV to inspect bridge pier sections, with page 515, left col, ln 15 - 17 and FIG. 7 shows a circular path for the UAV, and page 516, left col, ln 13 - 15 adds a different shape of a path for the UAV in FIG. 8.)
a step of displaying information about one or more types of the access means for accessing the inspection position on the display unit based on the received inspection position and the accessible range information (Liu, page 523, lines 11 - 12 through right col, ln 1 - 5 discloses crack projection and crack information provided on the 3D surface model in FIG. 28, which includes an inspection area indicated on the model of the bridge pier, with page 516, right col, ln 18 - 26 adds the working distance for images taken using cameras on UAVs.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat with the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu. The motivation to do so would have been because Liu discloses the benefit of the ability to correct a perspective and geometry distortion on nonflat surfaces in crack images after projection (of the cracks onto the model) to provide corrected crack objects in real and original 3D shape, with an accurately calculated crack width after the correction (Liu, page 527, right col, ln 8 - 14).
For claim 2: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 2: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 1, further comprising:
a memory that stores the three-dimensional model and the accessible range information (Charvat, par [0051] discloses the computer system sending, receiving, and storing information pertaining to the operations, and par [0067] discloses storing 2D images of the structure inspected, with par [0070] adds the images used to created 3D models of the structure, and par [0075] adding UAV structure measurements, including measuring distances on structures, dimensions and distances of defects.)
wherein the processor is configured to acquire the three-dimensional model and the accessible range information from the memory (Charvat, par [0067] discloses storing 2D images of the structure inspected, with par [0070] adds the images used to created 3D models of the structure, and par [0052] regarding a connection between a processor and data storage.)
For claim 3: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 3: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 2, wherein
the memory stores an image of the structure associated with the three-dimensional model (Charvat, par [0005] discloses images stored in the storage media, which are used to create a 3D model of the structure to be inspected.)
the processor is configured to: detect a damage from the image (Charvat, par [0067] discloses images obtained, and a 3D model created based on the images, and defects detected based on a location selected on the model and the original images retrieved showing the location of interest.)
automatically receive the designation of the inspection position based on the detected damage (Charvat, par [0035] discloses an automated version of the inspection system, including analyzing images obtained, with par [0067], reiterating the images obtained with the area of interest based on the 3D model created to select the interested area.)
For claim 4: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 4: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 2, wherein
the memory stores damage information associated with the three-dimensional model (Charvat, par [0052] discloses an imaging device, along with data storage device and processor, and par [0067] discloses a 3D model discloses a location of the defect based on the 2D image creating the model.)
the processor is configured to display the damage information on the three-dimensional model (Charvat, par [0067] adds the location on the 3D virtual model displaying the defect of the structure based on the images obtained from inspection.)
For claim 5: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 5: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 1, wherein
the processor is configured to: acquire surrounding environment information indicating a surrounding environment of the structure (Charvat, par [0036] discloses an area or property inspected by a UAV, which includes a bridge or building.)
display the information about the access means for accessing the inspection position based on the surrounding environment information, the inspection position, and the accessible range information (Liu, page 523, lines 11 - 12 through right col, ln 1 - 5 discloses crack projection and crack information provided on the 3D surface model in FIG. 28, showing a model of bridge piers, with an inspection area indicated on the lower end of the bridge pier models, with page 516, right col, ln 18 - 26 adds teaching of the working distance for the UAV.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat with the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu, and the additional teaching of the bridge pier model and its inspection area along the models, also found in Liu. The motivation to do so would have been because Liu discloses the benefit of the ability to correct a perspective and geometry distortion on nonflat surfaces in crack images after projection (of the cracks onto the model) to provide corrected crack objects in real and original 3D shape, with an accurately calculated crack width after the correction (Liu, page 527, right col, ln 8 - 14).
For claim 6: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 6: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 5, further comprising:
a memory that stores the surrounding environment information, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the surrounding environment information from the memory (Charvat, par [0052] discloses an imaging device, along with data storage device and processor, with par [0054] adding the processor transferring the information to a computing system and database for processing regarding the calculations.)
For claim 7: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 7: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire required unit inspection time information indicating a time required for inspection for each type of the access means (Charvat, par [0042] discloses obtaining time regarding the day, range of times during the day for the job to be performed by the UAV, including times when UAV sensors obtain better data.)
in a case of displaying the information about the access means, display the required unit inspection time information corresponding to the displayed information about the access means (Charvat, par [0049] discloses information regarding the structure for inspection, including the time for the inspection to be performed by the UAV, stored in a database and reviewed by a user, with par [0046] adding a user device with the ability to receive and display information pertaining to the UAV inspecting a structure.)
For claim 8: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 8: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 7, further comprising:
a memory that stores the required unit inspection time information memory (Charvat, par [0049] adding information regarding the structure for inspection, including the time for the inspection to be performed by the UAV, stored in a database.)
wherein the processor is configured to acquire the required unit inspection time information from the memory (Charvat, par [0054] discloses the processor transferring the information to a computing system and database for processing, interpreted to include steps in performing the inspection of a structure, with par [0049] adding information regarding the structure for inspection, including the time for the inspection to be performed by the UAV, stored in a database.)
For claim 9: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 9: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate at least one of a required time for each inspection position or a required time for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the required unit inspection time information (Charvat, par [0040] discloses information pertaining to the structure to be inspected, along with the flight plan for imaging the structure using the job determination engine, with par [0042] discloses the job determination engine also obtaining time regarding the day, range of times during the day for the job to be performed by the UAV, and the availability for the inspection to be performed on the structure by the UAVs.)
display the calculated required time (Charvat, par [0042] discloses the job determination engine also obtaining time regarding the day, range of times during the day for the job to be performed by the UAV, and par [0046] adding a user device with the ability to receive and display information pertaining to the UAV inspecting a structure.)
For claim 13: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 13: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 1, wherein
the inspection position is a position at which the structure is viewed or tapped (Charvat, par [0067] discloses position information associated with the structure being inspected, and can be in the form of GPS coordinates.)
For claim 14: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 14: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 1, wherein
the inspection position is an imaging target position indicating a range in which the structure is imaged (Charvat, par [0035] discloses a digital imaging device on a UAV to capture an image of a structure when positioned in range of the structure.)
For claim 15: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 15: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 14, wherein
the processor is configured to acquire an imaging condition for imaging the structure (Charvat, par [0045] discloses a resolution for the structure to be photographed in the form of flight information for the UAV.)
acquire an imaging position based on the inspection position and the imaging condition (Charvat, par [0045] discloses altitude and flight plan for the UAV, based on the flight information.)
display the information about the access means with respect to the imaging position (Charvat, par [0046] discloses displaying information from images to generate the 3D model to provide areas of interest in terms of areas of damage on the structure.)
For claim 16: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 16: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 15, further comprising:
a memory that stores the imaging condition (Charvat, par [0051] discloses the computer system sending, receiving, and storing information pertaining to the operations, with par [0045] discloses a resolution for the structure to be photographed in the form of flight information for the UAV.)
wherein the processor is configured to acquire the imaging condition from the memory (Charvat, par [0046] discloses flight information sent to the UAV from a user device, with par [0045] adds the resolution for the image included in the flight information.)
For claim 17: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 17: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 15, wherein
the processor is configured to display the imaging position (Charvat, par [0067] discloses GPS coordinates as position information for the structure being inspected, associated with an image and stored to create the 3D rendering to show the defect on the virtual 3D model.)
For claim 19: The combination of Charvat and Liu discloses claim 19. A non-transitory, computer readable tangible recording medium on which a program for causing, when read by a computer, the computer to execute the inspection support method according to claim 18 is recorded (Charvat, par [0053] discloses system with at least one processor, software, and a data storage device.)
Claims 10 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charvat et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0312028 A1), hereinafter “Charvat”, in view of Liu et al (“Image-Based Crack Assessment of Bridge Piers Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Three-Dimensional Scene Reconstruction”), and further in view of Chen et al. (“UAV Bridge Inspection through Evaluated 3D Reconstructions”), hereinafter “Chen”.
As per claim 10, the combination of Charvat and Liu discloses the device of claim 1.
The combination of Charvat and Liu does not expressly disclose:
wherein the processor is configured to acquire expense information indicating an expense required for inspection for each type of the access means; and
in a case of displaying the information about the access means, display the expense information corresponding to the displayed information about the access means.
Chen however discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to acquire expense information indicating an expense required for inspection for each type of the access means (Chen, page 29, lines 486 - 489 discloses the cost for using a UAV for performing the inspection, along with the time for surveying.)
in a case of displaying the information about the access means, display the expense information corresponding to the displayed information about the access means (Chen, page 30 discloses a Table for a comparison of inspection, including the use of the UAV, which shows a chart providing equipment and software cost, along with time for data collection and processing.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat and the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu with the cost for inspection performed using a UAV teaching of Chen. The motivation to do so would have been because Chen discloses the benefit of using a UAV offers significant advantages in equipment cost, point distribution, surveying time, and data coverage, compared to TLS (terrestrial laser scanning)-based inspection (Chen, page 41, lines 521 - 522).
For claim 11: The combination of Charvat, Liu, and Chen discloses claim 11. The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 10, further comprising:
a memory that stores the expense information, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the expense information from the memory (Chen, page 22, lines 376 - 382 discloses a computing device with memory (RAM) and a processor to collect and process data associated with using the UAV, interpreted to include the information in Table 7 regarding the cost and processing and collection time of using the UAV.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat and the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu with the cost for inspection performed using a UAV teaching of Chen, along with a computer device with memory and a processor for collecting and processing data and the cost and processing time regarding the UAV, also in Chen. The motivation to do so would have been because Chen discloses the benefit of using a UAV offers significant advantages in equipment cost, point distribution, surveying time, and data coverage, compared to TLS (terrestrial laser scanning)-based inspection (Chen, page 41, lines 521 - 522).
For claim 12: The combination of Charvat, Liu, and Chen disclose claim 12: The inspection support device of a structure according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate at least one of an inspection expense for each inspection position or an inspection expense for performing inspection at all inspection positions based on the inspection position and the expense information (Chen, page 5, lines 101 - 102 discloses a UAV system used to inspect bridges at a determined cost, and page 26, lines 440 - 442 adds areas on a bridge to detect features, shown in FIG. 25, showing the positions on the bridge, including the bridge arch.)
display the calculated inspection expense (Chen, page 22, lines 377 - 382 discloses a computing device used in collaboration with the UAV to perform the inspection and build models from images, interpreted to provide a display to show the images and resulting model.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure teaching of Charvat and the flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV teaching of Liu with the cost for inspection performed using a UAV teaching of Chen, along with a the cost and processing time regarding the UAV, also in Chen. The motivation to do so would have been because Chen discloses the benefit of using a UAV offers significant advantages in equipment cost, point distribution, surveying time, and data coverage, compared to TLS (terrestrial laser scanning)-based inspection (Chen, page 41, lines 521 - 522).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
March 28, 2026