DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 8 have been presented for examination.
This office action is in response to submission of the application on 02/15/2023.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “unit” in claim 6, and the “unit” in claim 1. Examiner notes that the “unit” in claim 1 is no longer single means after incorporation into claim 6 by virtue of dependency.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Looking to the disclosure with regard to claim 1, there is explicitly disclosed general purpose computer hardware and software for performing the “corrects” (see the instant application Paragraph 45 and Figure 2), in combination with one or more algorithms for realizing the “corrects” (see the instant application Paragraph 101 “the trajectories of the X and Z coordinate values of the points having the highest luminance among the features of the transverse pipe from the two-dimensional data 111(1) to the two-dimensional data 111(4) may be linearly approximated to obtain the posture of the transverse pipe” , and Paragraph 104 “If there is a feature of the longitudinal pipe at substantially the same position (within a predetermined threshold range) as the coordinates at which the feature is detected in the two-dimensional data 111(1), the number of consecutive times is increased by 1 to confirm the next adjacent image, and the count is incremented ”, and Paragraph 107 - 108 “Next, the three-dimensional model component detection unit 12 corrects the detection result … the posture of the buried object is set by connecting end points of a region where pixels having luminance higher than a predetermined value are continuous in the extending direction”). Looking to the disclosure with regard to the claim 6 “unit that captures an image”, there is explicitly disclosed in Figure 1 a “camera” and “camera data processing unit” usable for capturing an image of a road surface when operated in a normal and customary manner by one of ordinary skill in the art (see the instant application Paragraph 25 “The road surface data component detection unit 13 is a functional unit that detects a component on the road surface based on road surface data 131 (to be described later with reference to Figs. 3A to 3E) acquired from the camera data processing unit 21 by photographing the road surface 41.”) (see MPEP 2164.01 “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991)”, and MPEP 2164.02”). With regard to the claim 6 “unit that obtains blueprint data”, there is explicitly disclosed in Figure 2 a “blueprint data component detection program” on a device comprising general purpose computer components usable for obtaining blueprint data, in combination with one or more algorithms for obtain the blueprint data (see the instant application Paragraph 28 “For example, the user may digitize the blueprint of the paper medium by a scanner or the like, and input the digitized blueprint data 141 to the blueprint data component detection unit 14.” and Paragraph 30 “Note that the blueprint data component detection unit 14 may have an optical character recognition/reader (OCR) function to detect the blueprint detection data 203 from character information illustrated in the blueprint.”).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1, it recites a single means plus function “unit” which cannot rely on 112(f) to incorporate the structure from the specification. Therefore, the BRI of this claim elements extends to all the structural ways of performing the “corrects”, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as the structure indicated in the specification for the claim 1 “unit” (see Claim Interpretation).
The claim further recites “position/posture” which is unclear as to whether both “position” and “posture” are required, or only one is required. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as requiring only one of the elements.
With regard to claim 2, it recites functional language “component … is corrected” in combination with a “first [second] determination condition is satisfied”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations do not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as the structure indicated in the specification for the claim 1 “unit” since it covers functionality substantially related to the claim 1 “corrects” (see Claim Interpretation).
The claim recites “position/posture” which is unclear as to whether both “position” and “posture” are required, or only one is required. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as requiring only one of the elements.
With regard to claim 4, it recites functional language “determination is made”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as the structure indicated in the specification for the claim 1 “unit” since it covers functionality substantially related to the claim 1 “corrects” through the claim 2 “first [second] determination condition” (see Claim Interpretation).
With regard to claim 5, it recites functional language “information indicating … is included and output”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as the structure indicated in the specification for the claim 1 “unit” since it covers functionality substantially related to the claim 1 “corrects” through the claim 2 “first [second] determination condition” (see Claim Interpretation).
With regard to claim 6, it recites functional language “wherein a type and a position of the component are obtained”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as the structure indicated in the specification for the claim 1 “unit” (see Claim Interpretation).
With regard to claim 7, it recites “the component” in “determining, as a second determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there are two previously recited “a component”. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes are referring back to the component of the preamble, similarly as in claim 2.
The claim further recites “position/posture” which is unclear as to whether both “position” and “posture” are required, or only one is required. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes as requiring only one of the elements.
With regard to claim 8, it recites “the component” in “the component is a pipe”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there are two previously recited “a component”. The limitation is interpreted for examination purposes are referring back to the component of the preamble, similarly as in claim 3.
With regard to claims 3, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting further limitations to overcome the unclarity.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
With regard to claim 1, it recites a single means plus function “unit” which cannot rely on 112(f) to incorporate the structure from the specification. Therefore, the BRI of this claim elements extends to all structural ways of performing the “corrects”, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the disclosure is only enabling over the structural ways actually disclosed, and is not enabling over the entire BRI of the claims.
With regard to claim 2, it recites functional language “component … is corrected” in combination with a “first [second] determination condition is satisfied”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations do not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the disclosure is only enabling over the structure for performing the recited function(s) actually disclosed, and is not enabling over the entire BRI of the claims.
With regard to claim 4, it recites functional language “determination is made”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the disclosure is only enabling over the structure for performing the recited function(s) actually disclosed, and is not enabling over the entire BRI of the claims.
With regard to claim 5, it recites functional language “information indicating … is included and output”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the disclosure is only enabling over the structure for performing the recited function(s) actually disclosed, and is not enabling over the entire BRI of the claims.
With regard to claim 6, it recites functional language “as type and a position of the component are obtained”. However, there is no recited structure for perform the recited function(s) since the limitations does not invoke 112(f). Specifically, the functional language does not recite “means” and is not coupled with a generic placeholder. Therefore, it amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the disclosure is only enabling over the structure for performing the recited function(s) actually disclosed, and is not enabling over the entire BRI of the claims.
With regard to claims 3, it is rejected by virtue of being dependent on a rejected parent claim, and without reciting further limitations to overcome the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a machine) underground structure apparatus that detects information including a component constituting an underground structure, a type of the component, and position/posture information based on a plurality of pieces of two-dimensional data indicating a cross section of ground and three-dimensional data indicating the underground structure, the underground structure detection apparatus comprising: with respect to synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data, corrects the position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data based on an image feature grasped from the two-dimensional data. At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “corrects” covers judgements and evaluations that can be reasonably be performed based on interpreting two-dimensional data. Examiner notes that claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). However, the related algorithm(s) in the specification is used as encompassing a reasonable interpretation of the “corrects” for the purposes of the 101 analysis (see Claim Interpretation). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: a unit for performing the “corrects”. Examiner notes that claim 1 does not invoke 112(f) (see Claim Interpretation). However, the related structure in the specification is used as encompassing a reasonable interpretation of the “unit” for the purposes of the 101 analysis (see Claim Interpretation). Therefore, it covers no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 - 6 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 2 a first determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction, and when the first determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two- dimensional data connected in the first direction, and a second determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction, and when the second determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction;
Claim 3 the component is a pipe, the first direction is a transverse direction with respect to a road, and the second direction is a longitudinal direction with respect to a road;
Claim 4 wherein a determination is made for both the first determination condition and the second determination condition;
Claim 5 wherein the component is a pipe, and when a determination is established for both the first determination condition and the second determination condition;
Claim 6 wherein a type and a position of the component are obtained based on three-dimensional detection data obtained by detecting the component from the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data, road surface detection data obtained by detecting the component from the road surface data, and blueprint detection data obtained by detecting the component from the blueprint data.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “is corrected” covers judgements and evaluations that can be reasonably be performed based on interpretations from a plurality of two-dimensional data (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (see the instant application Paragraph 99 “Next, the three-dimensional model component detection unit 12 determines whether or not the consecutive number of sheets determined to be at the same position is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (S803)”). The “the component is” and “first direction is” and “second direction is” and “determination is made” further modify the parent claim(s) “corrects” and “is corrected”, and without precluding performance in the mind. The “determination is made” covers judgements and evaluations that can be reasonably be performed based on interpretations from a plurality of two-dimensional data (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (see the instant application Paragraph 99 “Next, the three-dimensional model component detection unit 12 determines whether or not the consecutive number of sheets determined to be at the same position is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (S803)”). The “a type and a position of the component are obtained” requires no more than judgements and evaluations comprising the correlation of data from different sources using analytical relationship, said correlations appear to be broad disclosed including no more than relatively simple mathematical formulas that could be realized in mind with a pen and paper (see the instant application Figure 10 and Paragraph 120 “For example, when the predetermined threshold is "0.7", the component type specifying unit 154 determines that the water pipe 33(1) in the two-dimensional data lll(i) and the water pipe 33(1) in the three-dimensional data 121 illustrated in Fig. 10 indicate the same component.”). Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention further claims: Claim 5 information indicating that a type of the pipe is a T-shaped pipe or an L-shaped pipe is included and output; Claim 6 various “unit”. For example, the “information indicating … is included and output” amounts to insignificant data outputting since it is recited at a high-level of generality with regard to how the outputting is performed, and since it amounts to conditionally outputting a detection result (see the instant application Paragraph 151 “case where the detection result of the longitudinal pipe intersects with a part of the detection result of the longitudinal pipe when it is assumed that the transverse pipe extends, information that there is a high possibility that intersection/branching occurs on the way may be included in the detection result”) (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112). The “unit” covers the related structure in the specification, which amounts to no more than mere application of the judicial exception using generic computer components and which does not amount to an improvement in computer functionality (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(I)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The “output” covers well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network”). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the recited “unit” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The additional elements do not amount to a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)(I)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 recites at Step 1 a statutory category (i.e. a process) underground structure detection method of an underground structure detection apparatus that detects information including a component constituting an underground structure, a type of the component, and position/posture information based on a plurality of pieces of two-dimensional data indicating a cross section of ground and three-dimensional data indicating the underground structure, the underground structure detection method comprising: creating synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data; determining, as a first determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction with respect to the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data; correcting position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data based on the two-dimensional data connected in the first direction when the first determination condition is satisfied; determining, as a second determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction with respect to the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data; and correcting position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction when the second determination condition is satisfied.
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, the “synthesizing” covers adjusting dimensions in two-dimension data using relationships that are not precluded from reasonably being performed in the mind in combination with a piece of paper (see the instant application Paragraph 79 “In the data synthesis processing S103, the three-dimensional model generation unit 11 adjusts the dimension of each piece of two-dimensional data 111 on the basis of (Formula 1) and (Formula 2) described below, for example”). The “correcting” covers judgements and evaluations that can be reasonably be performed based on interpreting two-dimensional data (see Claim Interpretation). The “determining” covers judgements and evaluations that can be reasonably be performed based on interpretations from a plurality of two-dimensional data (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112) (see the instant application Paragraph 99 “Next, the three-dimensional model component detection unit 12 determines whether or not the consecutive number of sheets determined to be at the same position is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value (S803)”). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim does not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 recite(s) at Step 1 the same statutory category as the parent claim(s), and further recite(s):
Claim 8 the component is a pipe, the first direction is a transverse direction with respect to a road, and the second direction is a longitudinal direction with respect to a road;
At Step 2A, Prong I the recited limitations, alone or in combination, amount to steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind in combination with using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The “the component is” and “first direction is” and “second direction is” further modify the parent claim(s) “determining” and “correcting”, and without precluding performance in the mind. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
At Step 2A, Prong II this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application since the claimed invention does not further recite any limitations. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B the claim(s) do not recite additional elements that, alone or in an ordered combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since there are no further recited limitations. For at least these reasons, the claim is not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, subject to overcoming the 112 and 101 rejections.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 2 (and by incorporation claim 3 – 5) underground structure detection apparatus, wherein: “a first determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction, and when the first determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two- dimensional data connected in the first direction, and a second determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction, and when the second determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
None of the prior art of record taken individually or in combination discloses the claim 7 (and by incorporation claim 8) underground structure detection method of an underground structure detection apparatus that detects information including a component constituting an underground structure, a type of the component, and position/posture information based on a plurality of pieces of two-dimensional data indicating a cross section of ground and three-dimensional data indicating the underground structure, the underground structure detection method comprising the steps: “determining, as a first determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction with respect to the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data; correcting position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data based on the two-dimensional data connected in the first direction when the first determination condition is satisfied; determining, as a second determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction with respect to the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data; and correcting position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction when the second determination condition is satisfied”, in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claim. Examiner notes that claim 7 has lack of antecedent basis for the recited “determining, as a second determination condition, that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data” which is interpreted for examination purposes as referring back to “a component” in the preamble similar to the first determination condition, and similar to claim 2 (see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103). It is for these reasons that the applicant’s invention defines over the prior art of record.
Kim et al. “Triplanar Imaging of 3-D GPR Data for Deep-Learning-Based Underground Object Detection” teaches using thresholding to classify GPR patterns of underground objects. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: a first determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction, and when the first determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two- dimensional data connected in the first direction, and a second determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction, and when the second determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction.
Terrasse et al. “Automatic Localization of Gas Pipes from GPR Imagery” teaches using a threshold to detect blobs in B-scans. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: a first determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction, and when the first determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two- dimensional data connected in the first direction, and a second determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction, and when the second determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction.
Hayakawa et al. (US 6573855) teaches thresholding an image as a binarizing step of extracting a candidate voxel group consisting of a plurality of voxels having amplitude values of positive or negative polarity and having magnitudes greater than a predetermined threshold and interconnected with each other. However, does not appear to explicitly disclose: a first determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined first threshold or more according to a first direction, and when the first determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two- dimensional data connected in the first direction, and a second determination condition is that an image feature indicated by the component in the two-dimensional data is included in continuous images by a predetermined second threshold or less according to a second direction, and when the second determination condition is satisfied, the position/posture information of the component represented by the synthetic data is corrected based on the two-dimensional data connected in the second direction.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasse et al. “Automatic Localization of Gas Pipes from GPR Imagery” (henceforth “Terrasse”) in view of Hayakawa et al. (US 6573855) (henceforth “Hayakawa (855)”), and further in view of Kim et al. “Triplanar Imaging of 3-D GPR Data for Deep-Learning-Based Underground Object Detection” (henceforth “Kim”). Terrasse and Hayakawa (855) and Kim are analogous art because they solve the same problem of detecting undergrounds structures, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of underground structure detection.
With regard to claim 1, Terrasse teaches an underground structure detection apparatus that detects information including a component constituting an underground structure, (Terrasse Figure 1 GPR device uses to detect a pipe
PNG
media_image1.png
97
164
media_image1.png
Greyscale
)
position/posture information based on a plurality of pieces of two-dimensional data indicating a cross section of ground indicating the underground structure, the underground structure detection apparatus comprising: (Terrasse Page 2395, Right whole pipe 3D position is obtained after hyperbola detection along 2D positions (plurality of pieces of 2D data) “After scanning the underground, a 3D position is not directly obtained but a 2D position according to the position of the GPR and a back and forth time travel of the wave. In order to get a depth scale, the wave speed must be estimated in the soil. This can be done with the shape of the hyperbola. Whole pipe 3D position : Indeed the hyperbola detection in each B-scan in a sequence of acquisitions along a pipe”)
a unit that, corrects the position/posture information of a component represented (Terrasse Page 2395, Right depth scale is added by analyzing shape of hyperbola (corrects the position/posture) “After scanning the underground, a 3D position is not directly obtained but a 2D position according to the position of the GPR and a back and forth time travel of the wave. In order to get a depth scale, the wave speed must be estimated in the soil. This can be done with the shape of the hyperbola. Whole pipe 3D position : Indeed the hyperbola detection in each B-scan in a sequence of acquisitions along a pipe”)
based on an image feature grasped from the two-dimensional data. (Terrasse Page 2397, Left hyperbolas are detected by computing coefficients in each B-scan (based on image feature grasped from 2D data) “High value coefficients would show the position of an hyperbola. Thus a simple way to detect hyperbola would be to keep these coefficients by a thresholding step”)
Terrasse does not appear to explicitly disclose: the underground structure detection apparatus that detects position/posture information based on three-dimensional data indicating the underground structure; a unit that, with respect to synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data, corrects the position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data.
However, Hayakawa (855) teaches:
the underground structure detection apparatus that detects position/posture information based on three-dimensional data indicating the underground structure (Hayakawa (855) Col. 6, Lines 57 – 62 depth scale is provided from voxel data source (based on 3D data) “With the above feature, by effecting the synthetic aperture operation or migration operation, it is possible to improve resolution within a plane (x, y) parallel to the medium surface. In the above, if the synthetic aperture operation or migration operation is effected on the source three-dimensional voxel data consisting of raw data of the reflected signals, the three-dimensional voxel data comprise data which can approximate e.g. the buried condition of the object (i.e. information converted into the depth scale).”)
a unit that, with respect to synthetic data (Hayakawa (855) Figure 3 a data processing unit for performing synthetic aperture operation)
obtained by synthesizing two-dimensional data and three-dimensional data, corrects a position/posture information of a component represented by the synthetic data (Hayakawa (855) Col. 6, Lines 57 – 62 synthetic aperture operation enhances resolution within a plane from source 3D voxel data (by synthesizing 2D and 3D data) to provide depth scale (corrects position/posture information of a component) “With the above feature, by effecting the synthetic aperture operation or migration operation, it is possible to improve resolution within a plane (x, y) parallel to the medium surface. In the above, if the synthetic aperture operation or migration operation is effected on the source three-dimensional voxel data consisting of raw data of the reflected signals, the three-dimensional voxel data comprise data which can approximate e.g. the buried condition of the object (i.e. information converted into the depth scale).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the correction of depth of a buried object disclosed by Terresa with the synthetic aperture operation disclosed by Hayakawa (855). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to desirably refine resolution in a plane (Hayakawa (855) Col. 6, Lines 57 – 62).
Terrasse in view of Hayakawa (855) does not appear to explicitly disclose: the underground structure detection apparatus that detects information including a type of the component.
However, Kim teaches:
an underground structure detection apparatus that detects information including a type of the component. (Kim Figure 2 processing software is utilized, and Figure 10 detected underground object is classified)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the correction of depth of a buried object disclosed by Terresa in view of Hayakawa (855) with the classification of a buried object disclosed by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to distinguish between different buried objects (Kim Page 4448, Left “For example, as shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b), pipes and cavities exhibit similar hyperbolic reflection patterns in B-scan images. Thus, it is difficult to classify these two using only B-scan images. However, these two can be distinguished by comparing their C- and D-scan images “)
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terrasse in view of Hayakawa (855), and further in view of Kim, and further in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 2022/0214437) (henceforth “Mochizuki (437)”). Terrasse and Hayakawa (855) and Kim and Mochizuki (437) are analogous art because they solve the same problem of detecting undergrounds structures, and because they are from the same field of endeavor of underground structure detection.
With regard to claim 6, Terrasse in view of Hayakawa (855), and further in view of Kim teaches all the elements of the parent claim 1, and further teaches:
a unit that obtains blueprint data from a blueprint related to an underground structure (Terrasse Page 2398, Left signatures of pipes (blueprint data) are generated (related to underground structure) “For this purpose, we chose to use a dictionary of simple theoretical measures of pipes coupled with a supervised learning scheme.”)
wherein a type and a position of the component are obtained based on three-dimensional detection data obtained by detecting the component from the synthetic data obtained by synthesizing the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data, and (Kim Figure 5 and 10 detected underground object is classified based on 3D voxel mask, where Hayakawa (855) also operates on voxels (from the synthetic data))
blueprint detection data obtained by detecting the component from blueprint data (Terrasse Page 2398, Left components are detected based on a dictionary (blueprint data obtained from a blueprint) “For this purpose, we chose to use a dictionary of simple theoretical measures of pipes coupled with a supervised learning scheme.”)
Terrasse in view of Hayakawa (855), and further in view of Kim does not appear to explicitly disclose: a unit that captures an image of a state of a road surface of a road to obtain road surface data; and that the type and position are obtained based on road surface detection data obtained by the detecting the component from the road surface data.
However, Mochizuki (437) teaches:
a unit that captures an image of a state of a road surface of a road to obtain road surface data; and (Mochizuki (437) Paragraph 45 “The camera 26 captures a road surface image in the measurement area at predetermined intervals. FIG. 6 illustrates, as a road surface map, an exemplary display of a combination of road surface images obtained by the camera 26.”)
wherein a position of the component are obtained based on road surface detection data obtained by the detecting the component from the road surface data (Mochizuki (437) Paragraph 53 desired layers can be displayed in an overlay thereby making it easier for a worker to perform measurement work, “Causing the display unit 18 to display the measurement data superimposed on the facility map and the topographic map can visualize the measurement area in a manner that a worker can easily understand. Therefore, the efficiency in a measurement work can be improved, and the effect of preventing overlooking in abnormality detection by collating with facility information on the facility map can be obtained”, and Figure 9 road surfaces images can be part of the overlaid layers, and Paragraph 14 the measurement is related to position reliability (position are obtained) “According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a ground penetrating radar device capable of obtaining a two-dimensional measurement data set having higher position reliability.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the correction of depth of a buried object disclosed by Terresa in view of Hayakawa (855), and further in view of Kim with the road image to help measuring a component disclosed by Mochizuki (437). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve a position reliability (Mochizuki (437) Paragraph 14 “According to the present invention, it is possible to provide a ground penetrating radar device capable of obtaining a two-dimensional measurement data set having higher position reliability.”)
Examiner General Comments
With regard to the prior art rejection(s), any cited portion of the relied upon reference(s), either by pointing to specific sections or as quotations, is intended to be interpreted in the context of the reference(s) as a whole as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention since the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the cited portions. Further, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner’s notes are provided with the cite references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFRED H. WECHSELBERGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8988. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am to 6pm.
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, Emerson Puente can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ALFRED H B WECHSELBERGER/Examiner, Art Unit 2187
Prosecution Insights