Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 10/15/2025 has been entered. The amended claims overcome all prior 112(b) rejections. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-8 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-8 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Silixa (US20140025319A1) in view of Reimer (US6061086A).
Regarding claim 1, Silixa teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (processor memory, paragraphs [0072], [0075], [0081]), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (paragraph [0023]);
acquire information indicating a first point (one of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), information indicating a second point (a second of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), first measurement data measured at the first point, and second measurement data measured at the second point (measurement data taken pertaining to vibration detection - paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0018], [0019]);
output information based on the determined equipment (paragraph [0077] discloses sensor output),
wherein the first measurement data and the second measurement data are measured by an optical fiber sensor and include measurement data of at least one of sound or vibration (paragraph [0018]).
Silixa fails to teach the processor configured to execute the instructions to determine equipment to be inspected on a basis of similarity between data registered according to a model of each piece of equipment and data based on at least one of the first measurement data or the second measurement data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical inspection of objects, Reimer teaches a device which takes a first and second measurement at two points (column 4, lines 51-59) and compares it to a model ('data library' - column 8, line 19), to determine the location of a target object to be inspected (column 5, lines 1-3).
Reimer discloses this method of comparing measurement data to model data to find a location of a target to be inspected decreases the need to image unnecessary areas/objects, therefore increasing the speed and improving the performance of the device (column 6, lines 1-21). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the information processing apparatus with the inspection of a targeted object taught in Reimer as the method improves the speed of an inspection device.
Regarding claim 4, Silixa as modified by Reimer teaches the apparatus as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches at least one processor is configured to:
estimate an area where an abnormality has occurred on a basis of the acquired data (Silixa: paragraph [0074]);
determine a model of equipment to be inspected on a basis of similarity between the data registered according to the model of each piece of equipment installed in the estimated area (Reimer: column 5, lines 1-3 discloses finding an estimated location; column 8, lines 1-23 disclose obtaining measurement data of the target area which is then processed to create a model of anomalies for inspection) and the data based on at least one of the first measurement data or the second measurement data (Reimer: column 8, lines 14-26 disclose comparing the measured data to a data library) ; and
determine equipment of the model of equipment to be inspected as the equipment to be inspected (Reimer: column 8, line 23 discloses create a model of the equipment that is inspected), among each piece of equipment installed in the estimated area (Silixa: paragraphs [0074], [0075] discloses the system calculates the relative position of a sensor corresponding to the position along the structure).
As disclosed above, the method of targeting and modeling objects taught in Reimer increases speed and performance of an inspection device (column 6, lines 1-21). Thus, a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to combine the device of Silixa as modified by Reimer with the modeling of inspected equipment as taught in Reimer as it allows the inspection of objects to be done much faster and more efficiently.
Regarding claim 7, Silixa teaches an information processing method comprising (paragraph [0001]):
acquiring information indicating a first point (one of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), information indicating a second point (a second of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), first measurement data measured at the first point, and second measurement data measured at the second point (measurement data taken pertaining to vibration detection - paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0018], [0019]);
outputting information based on the determined equipment (paragraph [0077] discloses sensor output).
wherein the first measurement data and the second measurement data are measured by an optical fiber sensor and include measurement data of at least one of sound or vibration (paragraph [0018]).
Silixa fails to teach determining equipment to be inspected on a basis similarity between data registered according to a model of each piece of equipment and data based on at least one of the first measurement data or the second measurement data.
However, Reimer teaches a device which takes a first and second measurement at two points (column 4, lines 51-59) and compares it to a model ('data library' - column 8, line 19), to determine the location of a target object to be inspected (column 5, lines 1-3).
Reimer discloses this method of comparing measurement data to model data to find a location of a target to be inspected decreases the need to image unnecessary areas/objects, therefore increasing the speed and improving the performance of the device (column 6, lines 1-21). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the information processing method taught in Silixa with the inspection of a targeted object taught in Reimer as the method improves the speed of an inspection device.
Regarding claim 8, Silixa teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute processing, the processing comprising (paragraph [0022]):
acquiring information indicating a first point (one of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), information indicating a second point (a second of the plurality of sensor positions - 462, Fig. 3), first measurement data measured at the first point, and second measurement data measured at the second point (measurement data taken pertaining to vibration detection - paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0018], [0019]);
outputting information based on the determined equipment (paragraph [0077] discloses sensor output), wherein the first measurement data and the second measurement data are measured by an optical fiber sensor and include measurement data of at least one of sound or vibration (paragraph [0018]).
Silixa fails to teach determining equipment to be inspected on a basis of similarity between data registered according to a model of each piece of equipment and data based on at least one of the first measurement data or the second measurement data.
However, Reimer teaches a device which takes a first and second measurement at two points (column 4, lines 51-59) and compares it to a model ('data library' - column 8, line 19), to determine the location of a target object to be inspected (column 5, lines 1-3).
Reimer discloses this method of comparing measurement data to model data to find a location of a target to be inspected decreases the need to image unnecessary areas/objects, therefore increasing the speed and improving the performance of the device (column 6, lines 1-21). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the information processing taught in Silixa with the inspection of a targeted object taught in Reimer as the method improves the speed of an inspection device.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silixa (US20140025319A1) in view of Reimer (US6061086A) as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Sato (US20060279428).
Regarding claim 5, Silixa as modified by Reimer teaches the invention as explained above in claim 4, but fails to teach the information indicating the first point includes information indicating a height of the first point,
the information indicating the second point includes information indicating a height of the second point, and
at least one processor is configured to estimate a three-dimensional area where an abnormality has occurred on a basis of the acquired data acquired.
However, in the same field of endeavor of abnormality detection devices, Sato teaches a three-dimensional sensor which is part of a computer (paragraph [0022]) and measures a height of at least two different points (paragraph [0006] discloses a plurality of points) to create an acquired image to determine where there are abnormalities (paragraphs [0040]-[0042]). It is the position of the examiner the use of "3D sensor" implies these images discloses a 3D location of the abnormality.
Sato discloses that when inspecting a 3D object, the height of an object in a target area is necessary to fully grasp the condition of the object (paragraph [0005]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device taught in Silixa as modified by Reimer with the height measurement taught in Sato as it enables way of gaining more information on the condition of an object (Sato: paragraph [0005]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silixa (US20140025319A1) ) in view of Reimer (US6061086A) as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Osano (JP2015045926A).
Regarding claim 6, Silixa as modified by Reimer teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the at least one processor is configured to transmit a command for instructing an inspection of the determined equipment to an inspection apparatus that autonomously moves.
However, in the same field of endeavor of abnormality detection devices, Osano teaches a device controlled by a computer (which would include a processor) that includes an autonomous abnormality detection device (10, Fig. 3) which causes an inspection device to execute an inspection (paragraph [0035]).
Osano discloses that the abnormality detection device used allows for precise identification of error sources (paragraph [0009]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Silixa as modified by Reimer with the autonomous detection device taught in Osano as it allows for the source of any errors to be identified.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877