DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendments filed 01/30/2024 have been entered. Claims 1-8 remain pending in the application.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses language which should be avoided, as discussed below, such as “An object of the present disclosure…” and “The present disclosure provides…”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0003] and [0033] have typographical errors;
[0017] discusses ‘the transmission unit’ and ‘the reception unit’, however, no such units are previously discussed in the specification, and the specification does not discuss how these units cooperate with the other elements of the system; This paragraph states that the measurement unit irradiates the measurement target with ‘the terahertz wave from the transmission unit’, which Examiner believes is an indication that the transmission unit is either a part of the measurement unit or coupled thereto, however, the specification does not provide such detail; Similarly, this paragraph states that ‘the electromagnetic wave acquired by the reception unit’ includes an EM wave generated by irradiating the measurement target with the terahertz wave, which Examiner also believes is an indication that the reception unit is either a part of the measurement unit or coupled thereto, but the specification similarly does not provide such detail; [0063] also makes reference to these units, stating that they are ‘included in the measurement unit’, however, these elements are not further specified, nor are they present in the figures;
[0017] recites “series of measurement”, which should read ‘series of measurements’;
[0017] refers to ‘using the measurement unit planarly’ and completing ‘the planar measurement’, however, the specification only previously discusses longitudinal and rotational movements, which would not form a planar measurement unless projected onto a plane, which is not discussed; The mechanism unit described is capable of forming cylindrical measurements, however, the specification does not discuss projecting such measurements onto a plane;
[0027] recites a discussion of several thresholds, but does not make clear the relationship therebetween;
[0033] recites “A straight line with a value larger than the threshold is detected as a string line…”, however, it is unclear what ‘value’ is being referred to here.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites “…wherein progressive probabilistic Hough transform is used…”, which should read ‘…wherein a progressive probabilistic Hough transform is used…’;
Claim 7 recites “…wherein the deterioration determination device configured to determine deterioration…”, which should read ‘…wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to determine deterioration…’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are: “…a measurement unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure…” and “…a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure…by moving…” in claim 7.
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.
The corresponding structure for the measurement unit is found in [0064], and the corresponding structure for the mechanism unit is found in [0060]-[0063].
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “…acquire an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave…” and “…acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave…”, respectively, however, this phrasing is ambiguous, as ‘measured using a terahertz wave’ could be reasonably interpreted as corresponding to ‘the image’, ‘the unevenness of the surface’, or ‘the surface of the metal structure’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claims, rendering them indefinite. Examiner believes this is intended to refer to the image, and thus, for purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…acquire/acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure, the image measured using a terahertz wave…’.
Claim 2 recites “the number of extracted straight lines”, which lacks antecedent basis in the claims. While the claim previously recites ‘straight lines’, no particular number of straight lines are required to be extracted and no particular number of straight lines is previously indicated in the claim as being extracted. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘determine deterioration of the linear structure by quantifying the extracted straight lines and using the resultant quantity of extracted straight lines’.
The term “high” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites “…normalize the image by using one threshold or a plurality of thresholds determined with the reflection intensity…”, which is ambiguous, because it is unclear what is intended by ‘determined with’. This phrase could reasonably be interpreted as meaning ‘determined using’ or ‘determined contemporaneously’. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…normalize the image by using one threshold or a plurality of thresholds, wherein the one or more thresholds are determined using the reflection intensity…’.
Claim 4 recites “…binarize each of the normalized images…”, however, the claim only requires normalizing one image, either by using one threshold or a plurality of thresholds. In the case of a plurality of thresholds, there would be ‘normalized images’, but in the single threshold case, there would only be a single normalized image. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. Claim 4 also recites “…detect the straight lines by using the plurality of binarized images…”, which is indefinite for similar reasons as discussed above in regards to the normalized image(s). For purposes of examination, these limitations are interpreted as ‘…binarize each normalized image to obtain one or more binarized images; and detect the straight lines by using the one or more binarized images’.
Claim 5 recites “the number of straight lines”, which lacks antecedent basis for the same reasons as those discussed in regards to claim 2. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘the quantity of straight lines’.
Claim 7 recites “…a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction…”. According to Applicant’s disclosure, the mechanism unit is only capable of moving the measurement unit, and thus does not reasonably perform ‘measuring unevenness’. Furthermore, the claim previously recites the measurement unit measuring unevenness, and thus it is unclear how the mechanism unit performs ‘measuring unevenness…by moving the measurement unit’, which appears to just require moving the measurement unit, which is the element that actually performs the measurement of unevenness. As such, it is not possible to adequately determine the metes and bounds of the claim, rendering it indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as ‘…a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to facilitate measurement of unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by the measurement unit by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction…’.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 an abstract idea judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed toward a device that takes in a premeasured image, and analyzes the image (i.e., performs data manipulation, wherein the manipulated data is not further used). Claim 7 is similar, but performs the data gathering step of measuring the image (i.e., routine data gathering) before performing the same analysis (wherein the manipulated data is not further used). Claim 8 is a method that comprises taking in a premeasured image and analyzing the image (i.e., performs data manipulation, wherein the manipulated data is not further used).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the analyzed image is not used and the device does not perform a practical function. The claims merely require the device/method take in/measure an image, and subsequently analyze the image, which amounts to mere data manipulation without any required output, action, or functionality resulting from the analyzed data (i.e., the analyzed image(s)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claim 1 has no additional elements other than arbitrary processors to perform the analysis, the dependent claims 2-6 merely specify aspects of the analysis/data manipulation, claim 7 merely requires general processors to perform the analysis and measurement and movement devices for routine data gathering (i.e., to acquire one or more images), and claim 8 recites no additional required structures.
As such, claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed toward a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A).
Examiner notes that Fujiwara and Aihara are Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara teaches a deterioration determination device ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]), comprising one or more processors ([0024]), configured to determine deterioration of a metal structure having an uneven structure ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]; Examiner notes that the described metal wire rope has ‘an uneven structure’), the deterioration determination device configured to:
acquire an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure ([0012]-[0016])
determine deterioration of the metal structure by analyzing the acquired image ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0023]).
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach acquire an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Aihara teaches acquire an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave ([0002]; 0016]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include acquire an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Aihara.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques and elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Aihara, to utilize the benefits of terahertz waves to allow one to safely image the target, even if covered by a protective sheath layer (See paragraphs [0001]-[0009] of Aihara), which could be readily applied to the wire rope of Fujiwara with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara teaches a deterioration determination method of determining deterioration of a metal structure having an uneven structure ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]; [0022]), the method comprising:
acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure ([0012]-[0016])
determining deterioration of the metal structure by analyzing the acquired image ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0023]).
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Aihara teaches acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave ([0002]; 0016]-[0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include acquiring an image indicating unevenness of a surface of the metal structure measured using a terahertz wave (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Aihara.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques and elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Aihara, to utilize the benefits of terahertz waves to allow one to safely image the target, even if covered by a protective sheath layer (See paragraphs [0001]-[0009] of Aihara), which could be readily applied to the wire rope of Fujiwara with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A) and Winter (U.S. PGPub. No. US 2011/268313 A1).
Examiner notes that Winter is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 1.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the metal structure is a linear structure ([0001]-[0002]), and
the deterioration determination device is configured to:
detect straight lines from the image ([0012]-[0014]);
extract the straight lines corresponding to metal wires included in the image ([0012]-[0014])
determine deterioration of the linear structure using the number of extracted straight lines ([0012]-[0014]; [0023]).
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach extract the straight lines corresponding to metal wires included in the image by using an inclination of the straight lines (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Winter teaches extract the straight lines corresponding to metal wires included in the image by using an inclination of the straight lines (See Fig. 1, 2, and 5; [0014]; [0027]; [0034]; [0077]; [0080]-[0082]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include extract the straight lines corresponding to metal wires included in the image by using an inclination of the straight lines (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Winter.
Doing so represents combining known prior art techniques and elements according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one, as taught by Winter, use the lay angle and/or wire strand angle to contextually determine breakages/wear, providing Fujiwara with additional contextual analysis capabilities to better determined breakages/wear.
See also the prior art Oyama cited below.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara and Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Aihara further teaches wherein the image is an image indicating reflection intensity of the terahertz wave with which the metal structure is irradiated ([0008]-[0010]; [0016]-[0019]), and
the deterioration determination device is configured to detect the straight lines using a region where a reflection intensity is high in the image ([0016]-[0019]).
See also the prior art Oyama cited below.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara and Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Fujiwara further teaches wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to:
calculate a precision of the linear structure using a total number of straight lines detected from the image and the number of straight lines corresponding to metal wires extracted from the image ([0013]; [0023]; [0027]); and
determine deterioration of the linear structure using the precision ([0012]-[0013]; [0023]; [0027]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A) and Bondada (DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2018.07.115).
Examiner notes that Bondada is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara and Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 3.
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to: normalize the image by using one threshold or a plurality of thresholds determined with the reflection intensity; binarize each of the normalized images; and detect the straight lines by using the plurality of binarized images.
However, normalizing images according to one or more thresholds is well represented within the prior art, as is binarizing such images, and one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonable apprised of such techniques.
Nevertheless, Aihara further teaches binarizing the image data and using such binarized images to detect the lines in [0019] and [0025].
Bondada discloses the use of normalization techniques in Section 3.4, including using the intensity (i.e. in the HSI transformation).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara in view of Aihara with the teachings of Bondada (or simply using ordinary skill in the art) to achieve wherein the deterioration determination device is configured to: normalize the image by using one threshold or a plurality of thresholds determined with the reflection intensity; binarize each of the normalized images; and detect the straight lines by using the plurality of binarized images.
Doing so would allow one to use conventional image analysis techniques to better extract information from the images in a typical fashion.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A) and Galambos (DOI: 10.1109/CVPR.1999.786993).
Examiner notes that Galambos is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara and Winter teaches the deterioration determination device according to claim 2.
Fujiwara does not explicitly teach wherein progressive probabilistic Hough transform is used to detect the straight lines, and a threshold of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is 5 or more and 20 or less.
Galambos teaches wherein progressive probabilistic Hough transform is used to detect the straight lines (Abstract; Section 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara to include wherein progressive probabilistic Hough transform is used to detect the straight lines, as taught by Galambos.
Doing so represent combining know prior art techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable results, and would allow one to use a less computationally demanding algorithm for improved line detection, as disclosed by Galambos.
Fujiwara in view of Galambos does not explicitly teach a threshold of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is 5 or more and 20 or less, however, Fujiwara in view of Galambos discloses the claimed invention except for the particular threshold range. Galambos further indicates in Section 2 that the threshold would need to be chosen for the particular application and desired precision values (also indicated as dependent on application), indicating that the threshold is a result-effective variable.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiwara in view of Galambos to include a threshold of the progressive probabilistic Hough transform is 5 or more and 20 or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Doing so would allow one to adapt the PPHT to the particular applications as necessary, as disclosed by Galambos, by routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujiwara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2011107056 A) in view of Aihara (JPO Doc. No. JP 2021028622 A) and Maruki (JPO Doc. No. JP H09243573 A).
Examiner notes that Maruki is Applicant provided prior art via the IDS dated 01/30/2026.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood in view of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issues identified above, Fujiwara in view of Aihara teaches a deterioration determination system ([0001]-[0003]; [0012]-[0016]) comprising:
the deterioration determination device according to claim 1 (See claim 1 for claim mapping);
a measurement unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of a surface of the metal structure ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0034]); and
wherein the deterioration determination device configured to determine deterioration of the metal structure using an image obtained from data measured by the measurement unit ([0012]-[0016]; [0022]-[0034]).
Fujiwara does not teach a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction.
Aihara teaches a measuring jig that is capable of moving the measuring unit in a longitudinal direction along the metal structure (See Figs. 2, items 131-134), which Examiner interprets as reading on a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure.
Aihara does not teach a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Emphasis added by Examiner).
Maruki teaches a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (See Figs. 1-2; [0011]-[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fujiyama in view of Aihara to include a mechanism unit, comprising one or more processors, configured to measure unevenness of the surface of the metal structure by moving the measurement unit in a longitudinal direction of the metal structure and a rotational direction perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (Emphasis added by Examiner), as taught by Maruki.
Doing so represents combining known prior art elements/techniques according to known methods in order to achieve predictable result, and would allow one to more comprehensively image the metal structure (i.e., the metal wire ropes) by providing for additional degrees of freedom for the imaging elements.
See also the prior art Oyama cited below.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Oyama (WO 2014034848 A1);
Wei (CN 112164052 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4363. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ROBERT H KIM can be reached at (571)272-2293. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J GASSEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/ROBERT H KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2881