DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response filed on 09/11/2025, which has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 7, 8 have been amended. Claims 9-11 have been added. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application. The rejection to claim 8 under 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (US 20180148898) in view of MASAHIKO et al. (JPH11132961A).
Regarding claim 1, Shimada discloses An infrastructure diagnostic device comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (Shimada, “[0048] FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating a configuration of a system including a road state management apparatus 100 according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. [0057] FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example of a function configuration of the road state management apparatus 100. The road state management apparatus 100 includes a communication part 110, an input part 120, a control part 130, a memory part 140, and an output part 150”) to:
display a plurality of time series on a display at a same time, each time series representing changes in infrastructure states at any one of a plurality of locations in a predetermined area (Shimada, fig.5, “[0064] In this case, the conversion part 132 matches various kinds of road state information in terms of position information through conversion to position information of latitudes and longitudes, and the extraction part 133 distributes these kinds of information to the management units, each defined by “start point and end point” based on the latitudes and the longitudes, and extracts the information in order of time. [0067] For example, as illustrated in FIG. 5, the road state management apparatus 100 displays various kinds of information in order of time quarterly in a year, with more deteriorated road states being displayed at higher densities”. Take fig. 5 for example, each row of the plurality of tables corresponds to a time series, and all the rows are displayed at a same time. Each time series represents changes in infrastructure states);
On the other hand, Shimada fails to explicitly disclose but MASAHIKO discloses receive selection of any one of the plurality of time series; and display a location associated to the selected time series on a map on the display (MASAHIKO, figs.2-4, “[0005] An image selection display unit that selects desired image data based on the selected image data and displays the desired inspection position and a plurality of image data around the desired inspection position as a stitched image. [0011] Updating the database Since the time-series deterioration of the structure at a specific position is recorded, it is possible to add image data of the structure taken at the same position with a time interval as new image data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined MASAHIKO and Shimada, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the display mechanism based on a selection of MASAHIKO to the road state management apparatus of Shimada. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a structure inspection device capable of easily extracting the degree of deterioration of a structure and improving work efficiency (MASAHIKO, [0004]).
Regarding claim(s) 7, it is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim(s) 8, it recites similar limitations as claim 1, except that it further recites A non-transitory computer readable medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute a process.
Shimada further discloses “claim 1, A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a road state management program for causing a computer to execute a process”.
Regarding claim 2, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 1.
On the other hand, Shimada fails to explicitly disclose but MASAHIKO discloses display detailed information of the infrastructure states of the selected time series (MASAHIKO, “[0010] when the operator designates a place to be noted, the image data of the place is retrieved from the database, the designated place is enlarged and displayed, and an image including detailed information is displayed”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 3, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 1, wherein receive selection of anyone of the plurality of time series, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Shimada fails to explicitly disclose but MASAHIKO discloses selection of a time point in the time series, and display detailed information of the infrastructure state at the selected time point in the selected time series (MASAHIKO, “[0013] Displaying history information When looking at the inspection history of a structure, if an image position is specified, the latest image at that time is extracted from the image database 5, including peripheral images of the specified location, Display as a stitched image. If the shooting time is different at the location of the structure, or if there are multiple image data with different shooting times at the same position, that is, when there is time-series image data, the latest image data is extracted for each position”). The same motivation of claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 4, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 2.
Shimada further discloses wherein the detailed information is at least one of a value of an index representing the infrastructure state and an image used to calculate the value of the index (Shimada, “[0127] The “crack rate” is a value obtained from the result of the image processing of the road surface image in the crack analysis part 511 based on the criteria of the traditionally used MCI (Maintenance Control Index: maintenance control index for pavements). [0222] The flatness information of the road is not particularly limited and may be appropriately selected depending on the intended purpose so long as it is information indicative of flatness of a road calculated based on the acceleration information daily measured by the portable terminal 300 mounted on the patrol vehicle 200. Examples of the flatness information include an MCI, an IRI (International Roughness Index), and a DII (Deterioration Information Index) (registered trademark, FUJITSU LIMITED)”).
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (US 20180148898) in view of MASAHIKO et al. (JPH11132961A), and further in view of DU (WO 2018227696 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 1, wherein select/extract, from among the plurality of locations, a location a value of an index representing the infrastructure state, and display the time series of the infrastructure states of the selected/extracted location, has been disclosed (see claim mapping in claims 1 and 4 set forth above).
On the other hand, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO fails to explicitly disclose but DU discloses where a value representing the infrastructure state satisfies a predetermined condition (DU, “Abstract, sending second data which satisfy a pre-determined condition from among the first data to a server. [0069] A data, the monitoring mode formed by the number of sensors, the information gathering of the second data satisfying the preset condition in the first data makes the monitoring result of the road bridge state reliable”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined DU into the combination of MASAHIKO and Shimada, to include all limitations of claim 5. That is, adding the information extraction criteria of DU to extract the location with index values of MASAHIKO and Shimada. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to make the monitoring result of the road bridge state reliable (DU, [0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 1.
Claim 6 recites similar limitations as claim 5, except that it recites a change in a value of an index representing the infrastructure state satisfies a predetermined condition, instead of a value of index.
Shimada further discloses a change in a value of an index representing the infrastructure state (Shimada, “[0091] When the acceleration sensor unit 320 is capable of measuring acceleration along three axes, it is possible from measurement values of front-and-rear acceleration and left-and-right acceleration to calculate variation relative to the measurement value of up-and-down acceleration due to speed change and curves. [0225] The DII is calculated based on the notion that at a point where up-and-down acceleration is found to greatly fluctuate as a result of acceleration measurement by acceleration sensors for three axes in the portable terminal 300”). The same motivation of claim 5 applies here.
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (US 20180148898) in view of MASAHIKO et al. (JPH11132961A), and further in view of Normandin et al. (US 20180121033).
Regarding claim 9, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 1.
On the other hand, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO fails to explicitly disclose but Normandin discloses display the plurality of time series in a table form or a graph form, and receive selection of an item displayed in the table form or the graph form, the item representing any one of the plurality of time series (Normandin, fig.6, “[0061] In response to a first user select signal (e.g., left mouse click) of one of any of the row records within table object 604, the client application displays a window object that displays time series metric data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Normandin into the combination of MASAHIKO and Shimada, to include all limitations of claim 9. That is, adding the displaying feature of Normandin to the display of MASAHIKO and Shimada. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to efficiently access and render time series operational metric data based on user interface (UI) interactions within client node (Normandin, [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO and Normandin discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 9.
On the other hand, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO fails to explicitly disclose but Normandin discloses display the plurality of time series in the table form, and receive selection of any one of the plurality of time series in a row clicked by a user in the table (Normandin, fig.6, “[0061] In response to a first user select signal (e.g., left mouse click) of one of any of the row records within table object 604, the client application displays a window object that displays time series metric data”). The same motivation of claim 9 applies here.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada et al. (US 20180148898) in view of MASAHIKO et al. (JPH11132961A), and further in view of Normandin et al. (US 20180121033) and Counts et al. (US 20090254847).
Regarding claim 11, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO and Normandin discloses The infrastructure diagnostic device according to claim 9, wherein display the plurality of time series in the graph form, has been disclosed.
On the other hand, Shimada in view of MASAHIKO and Normandin fails to explicitly disclose but Counts discloses receive selection of any one of the plurality of time series in a curve clicked by a user in the graph (Counts, “[0020] A person could interact with the graph by clicking on the line to indicate the selection of the data that is represented by the line (block 222)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined Counts into the combination of MASAHIKO and Shimada, Normandin, to include all limitations of claim 11. That is, applying the line selection based on clicking of Counts to the time series graph of Normandin. The motivation/ suggestion would have been The system may provide a visual interface that shows a representation of data in a visual form, such as a graph, chart, etc. A person may interact with the visual representation of the data in order to select data to be analyzed (Counts, [0003]).
Response to Arguments
The rejection to claim 8 under 35 USC § 101 is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submitted: the cited references do not teach or suggest "one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: display a plurality of time series on a display at a same time, each time series representing changes in infrastructure states at any one of a plurality of locations in a predetermined area; [and] receive selection of any one of the plurality of time series," as claimed (Remarks, page 7).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In fig.5 of Shimada, each row of the plurality of tables corresponds to a time series, and all the rows are displayed at a same time. Each time series represents changes in infrastructure states.
On the other hand, Shimada fails to explicitly disclose but MASAHIKO discloses receive selection of any one of the plurality of time series; and display a location associated to the selected time series on a map on the display (MASAHIKO, figs.2-4, “[0005] An image selection display unit that selects desired image data based on the selected image data and displays the desired inspection position and a plurality of image data around the desired inspection position as a stitched image. [0011] Updating the database Since the time-series deterioration of the structure at a specific position is recorded, it is possible to add image data of the structure taken at the same position with a time interval as new image data”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined MASAHIKO and Shimada, to include all limitations of claim 1. That is, adding the display mechanism based on a selection of MASAHIKO to the road state management apparatus of Shimada. The motivation/ suggestion would have been to provide a structure inspection device capable of easily extracting the degree of deterioration of a structure and improving work efficiency (MASAHIKO, [0004]).
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 GRACE Q LI whose telephone number is (571)270-0497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, DEVONA FAULK can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GRACE Q LI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618