DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on July 08, 2026. Claims 1 - 19 are presented for examination. Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected and this Office Action is being made Final.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 08, 2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. Based on the amendment to overcome the objections to the claims, and the amendments to the claims to incorporate subject matter from the specification to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, all objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed July 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to claim 3 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues the amendment to claim 3 overcomes the rejection due to the amended feature is not mere data gathering or a mental process, the automated damage identification triggers the designation of a precise location on the three-dimensional model for further action, as the specific automated workflow improves the efficiency and accuracy of the structural inspection process, which is a real-world, technological problem.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitation recites “analyze image data from the image of the structure to identify damage to the structure”, which recites an abstract idea performed, as the amendment still recites a mental process that “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. A person, with the recitation of computer components or a human without a computer, can view an image to determine where the damage is located on a structure. The claimed language is written broad enough that there is no specific feature in the analysis performed the prohibits a human to perform the function in the form of a mental process. In addition, the recitation of “automatically receive the designation of the inspection position based on the identified damage” does not provide an improvement, as the recitation of a step being performed automatically does not provide an improvement to the abstract idea. MPEP 2016.05(b)(I) recites “Merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection”, as the computer in the claim is merely used as a tool to perform the process of designating the damage location, in which the damage location can be performed by a human mind, as recited above. In addition, MPEP 2106.05(a) (I) recites “iii. Mere automation of manual processes,” may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. Simply automating a step that can be performed by a human does not provide an improvement for the claimed invention.
With regards to claims 9, 12 and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant argues on page 8, lines 1 - 17, particularly lines 7 - 17 recites that the calculations performed are integrated into a practical application by operating on data specific to the technical field (inspection positions, access means, three-dimensional models of a structure) to solve a technical problem, as the results are not just numbers but rather important pieces of planning data that are displayed for a user, enabling better and faster decision-making for the physical task of inspecting the structure.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Performing calculations in the claimed language provided is still performing calculations, without adding significantly more. The argument of “enabling better and faster decision-making for the physical task of inspecting the structure” is not reflected in the claim language, as there are no steps of using the calculated results displayed to enhance the physical inspection of the structure in the claim to reflect an improvement recited in the specification. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) recites “if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").” The claims do not recite sufficient subject matter from the specification to reflect an improvement.
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:
analyze image data from the image of the structure to identify damage to the structure; and
automatically receive the designation of the inspection position based on the identified damage.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “analyze image data from the image of the structure to identify damage to the structure” 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 view an image and provide a mental evaluation of the structure on the image to determine where the structure has damage, in terms of location.
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 analyzing and identify the damage to a structure 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 analysis of the structure to identify the damage 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 analyzing the location of damage of a structure on an image 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 a total required inspection time by combining a required unit inspection time for each of a plurality of inspection positions; and
display the calculated total required time.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “calculate a total required inspection time by combining a required unit inspection time for each of a plurality of inspection positions” 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 complete 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 total inspection time 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 results of the total 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 a total inspection expense based on expense information corresponding to one or more selected inspection positions on the three-dimensional model; and
display the calculated total inspection expense.
Under Step 2A, prong one, the limitation of “calculate a total inspection expense based on expense information corresponding to one or more selected inspection positions on the three-dimensional model” 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 the cost of a total inspection performed, using the places of inspection on a three-dimensional model representing a structure.
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 total 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 total 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Claim 1 and 18: The prior art of Charvat et al (U.S. PG Pub 2020/0312028 A1) discloses structure inspection including obtaining a 3D model of the structure to identify the damage on the structure, Liu et al (“Image-Based Crack Assessment of Bridge Piers Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Three-Dimensional Scene Reconstruction”) discloses flight path and areas on the model to perform an inspection using an UAV, Chen et al. (“UAV Bridge Inspection through Evaluated 3D Reconstructions”) discloses the cost for inspection performed using a UAV.
In addition, Yu et al (“A UAV-Based Crack Inspection System for Concrete Bridge Monitoring”) discloses crack detections and images obtained from a UAV, and using decision trees to stitch images together to obtain a final crack map for a bridge, and Dorafshan et al (“Bridge Inspection: Human Performance, Unmanned Aerial Systems, and Automation”) discloses visual inspections using ladders, rigging, scaffolding, boats, floats, free climbing, boatswain chairs, and climbers, and the use of UAS (unmanned aerial system), similar to a UAV.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Charvat, Liu, Chen, Yu, and Dorafshan, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses for claim 1: An inspection support device of a structure and for claim 18: An inspection support method, including the steps of obtaining how different access means reach their respective inspection position to inspect a structure, including the work ranges for the different access means for performing inspections that define the radius and area to obtain the inspection information for the structure, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention. It is for these reasons that the applicants’ invention defines over the prior art of record.
Dependent claims 2 - 17, and 19 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claims 1 and 18, allowable base claims under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
September 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights