Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/26/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 8 and 11 are amended. Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 13-14 are new. Claims 1 and 5-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and
11 have been fully considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references being used in the current rejection.
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 and 5-14 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.
Independent claims 1 ana 11 recite “the inspection reports each having a comment field in which comments have been entered…” Here, it is unclear what “each” refers to: report, structure, or inspection? Dependent claims 5-10 and 12-14 are rejected under the similar rationale.
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 of this title, 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, 6-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US 2018/0182090 A1) in view of Sagawa (US 2009/0076853 A1).
As to Claim 1, Yamagishi teaches A structure inspection assistance apparatus comprising:
a processor; and a database, wherein the database stores: target structure-related information including at least one of a captured image of a target structure or damage information pertaining to the target structure, the damage information including at least one of a location of damage to the target structure, a type of damage, or an extent of damage (Yamagishi discloses “The image capturing terminal 12 generates the first inspection result 13 regarding the construction 9 in response to an operation by an inspector and outputs the first inspection result 13 to the main body 19 of the inspection result retrieval device 10” in [0038], see also first inspection result in Fig 2 below:
PNG
media_image1.png
510
760
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
a template for an inspection report, the template having a damage type field for entering a type of detected damage and a comment field for entering comments for the detected damage (Yamagishi discloses “The information input unit 23 accepts, for example, "construction information", "usage conditions" and "locational and environmental conditions" of the construction 9, and the "type" and "assessment" of the damage D that has occurred in an inspection portion of the construction 9 input by using an operation key…” in [0041]; “the type and assessment of the damage D input from the information input unit 23” in [0047]; a template for an inspection report 13 as shown in Fig 2-3. It is obvious that a template may include construction information, usage conditions, locational and environmental conditions, damage and image data or any other comment field. For example, Sagawa discloses “the template for the present report is produced by producing the information relating to the present images from the information relating to the past images, as well as by copying the comments as written in the past report into the template” in [0020]; “The comment input zone 82 is provided with a text input box 87 for inputting at least a finding as a comment, the finding explaining a condition seen from the image, and a second text input box 88 for inputting a diagnosis as a comment” in [0062]); and
an inspection history of structures, including: structure-related information pertaining to each structure inspected in the past; and inspection reports prepared for each structure at each inspection time in the past, the inspection reports each having a comment field in which comments have been entered, the comments being text data indicating a basis and/or rationale for determination of a countermeasure category for damage detected during the inspection, and for the determination of soundness of each structure (Yamagishi discloses “FIG. 18 is a front view of an example of an inspection history display screen displayed on the display unit and indicating the inspection history of a specific construction according to the fifth embodiment” in [0034]; “The "assessment" of the damage D indicates the assessed degree of the damage D that has occurred in the construction 9. In the example described here, the degree of the damage D is assessed and classified into four categories, namely, categories 1 to 4” in [0046]; “Examples of the "type" of the damage D include a crack, a leakage, corrosion, a breakage, and peeling, as described above” in [0057]; shape and size of the damage in [0059]. It is well known that the comments in the report can include any other annotations. For example, Sagawa discloses “Preferably, the information relating to the past images includes annotation data that represents an annotation consisting of text data and a mark that is put on the past key image, and the template producing device copies the annotation data and includes it as annotation data for the present key image in the information relating to the present images” in [0016]; comment input zone in [0062]), and
the processor is configured to:
accept a selection of the target structure-related information including at least one of a captured image or damage information pertaining to the target structure; detect a type of damage to the target structure based on the target structure-related information (Yamagishi discloses “As illustrated in FIG. 3, the second inspection results 17 in the example described here each include the "inspection date and time" when the inspection of the construction 9 is conducted, and further include "construction information", "usage conditions", "locational and environmental conditions", the "type" and "assessment" of the damage D, and the inspection image data 27 (tag information is not illustrated), which are similar to those of the first inspection result 13” in [0050], see also an acceptance unit in [0011]);
extract, based on the target structure-related information, structure-related information similar to the target structure-related information and extract comments on damage prepared during past inspections for the extract structure-related information from the database; further extract, based on the detected type of damage, comments on damage similar to the damage detected on the target structure, from the extracted comments on damage prepared during the past inspections (Yamagishi discloses “The retrieval unit 32 first accesses the database 15 (see FIG. 3) while using the first image feature F1 input from the first image feature obtaining unit 31 as a search condition and performs a first retrieval process for retrieving the second inspection results 17 that each include the inspection image data 27 having an image feature corresponding to the search condition” in [0062]; “The retrieval unit 32 first compares the first image feature F1 input from the first image feature obtaining unit 31 with the second image feature F2 of each of the second inspection results 17 in the database 15 obtained by the second image feature obtaining unit 33 and identifies the second image features F2 that are similar (the term "similar" used here also means the "same") to the first image feature F1.” in [0067], see also [0071]);
prepare, as a comment template to be entered into a comment field of a new inspection report to be prepared for the target structure, text data indicating a basis and/or rationale for the determination of a countermeasure category for damage detected on the target structure and for the determination of soundness of the target structure, on a basis of the extracted comments on damage for a structure similar to the target structure and for damage similar to the damage detected on to the target structure; and display the text data for the comment template on a display (Yamagishi discloses “An inspector who has inspected an inspection portion of the construction 9 captures an image of the inspection portion using the image capturing terminal 12 and inputs, for example, "construction information", "usage conditions", "locational and environmental conditions", and the "type" and "assessment" of the damage D illustrated in FIG. 2 described above by using the operation key or the display/input unit 25 of the image capturing terminal 12” in [0083]; “In a case of predicting future development of the damage D having occurred in the construction 9 that is the inspection target in the first inspection result 13, the inspection result retrieval device 10 starts retrieval of the second inspection results 17 that are past inspection results suitable for the prediction.” in [0084]; “When the damage D having occurred in the construction 9 that is the inspection target in the first inspection result 13 is compared with the specific inspection results 17 A, which are past inspection results and which correspond to the usage conditions or the locational and environmental conditions of the construction 9, for example, the state (degree), development, and severity of the damage D can be assessed” in [0090]; “As a consequence, the severity of the damage D that has occurred in the construction 9 can be determined, and furthermore, the time when the damage D of the construction 9 needs to be repaired can be appropriately determined” in [0093]; “the "inspection date and time", and the type of inspection result are displayed on the comparison display screen 43; however, information to be displayed other than the inspection image data 27 is not specifically limited.” in [0102]. Sagawa further discloses “The comment input zone 82 is provided with a text input box 87 for inputting at least a finding as a comment, the finding explaining a condition seen from the image, and a second text input box 88 for inputting a diagnosis as a comment… Note that the comments written in the image interpretation report 24 are not limited to the findings and diagnoses, but may include a suggestion for a countermeasure and other notes” in [0062].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Yamagishi with the teaching of Sagawa so that the comments written in the image interpretation report are not limited to the findings and diagnoses, but may include a suggestion for a countermeasure and other notes (Sagawa, [0062]).
As to Claim 6, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selection of the target structure related information is automatically accepted from the target structure (Yamagishi discloses “the inspection result retrieval device further includes an acceptance unit that, in a case where a specification operation of specifying a damage portion of the damage in the inspection image preliminarily displayed on the display unit is performed, accepts input of the specification operation; and the first image feature obtaining unit obtains the image feature that includes the damage feature of the damage portion of the damage specified in the specification operation accepted by the acceptance unit from the inspection image. Accordingly, one or more specific inspection results suitable for predicting the development of a type of damage specified in the specification operation among a plurality of types of damage having occurred in the construction can be retrieved from the database and displayed on the display unit” in [0011], see also [0067, 0088].)
As to Claim 7, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the target structure-related information is automatically accepted on a basis of at least one of the captured image or the damage information (Yamagishi discloses “The retrieval unit 32 first compares the first image feature F1 input from the first image feature obtaining unit 31 with the second image feature F2 of each of the second inspection results 17 in the database 15 obtained by the second image feature obtaining unit 33 and identifies the second image features F2 that are similar (the term "similar" used here also means the "same") to the first image feature F1” in [0067], see also [0088].)
As to Claim 8, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor executes an editing process of accepting an edit to the comment template and modifying the comment template (Sagawa discloses “The template may be displayed on a display device, and is edited on the display device, to complete the present report” in [0013]. Here, the edited template includes an edit to the comments.)
As to Claim 10, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor executes a related information extraction process of extracting related information that is related to damage to the target structure, and displays the related information on the display (Yamagishi discloses “in a case of retrieval of the one or more second inspection results or the one or more specific inspection results corresponding to the image feature obtained by the first image feature obtaining unit, performs the retrieval using the image feature obtained by the second image feature obtaining unit. Accordingly, the retrieval unit can retrieve the one or more second inspection results that correspond to the image feature obtained by the first image feature obtaining unit from the database” in [0009], see also [0015, 0032] and Fig 7 & 11.)
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a computer-readable tangible recording medium form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
As to Claim 13, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires past structure-related information on the target structure from the inspection history, and prepares the comment template to be entered into the comment field of the new inspection report for the damage detected on the target structure, based on the target-structure related information and the past structure-related information on the target structure, using comments on past damage to the target structure, the past damage being similar to the damage detected on the target structure
(Yamagishi discloses “Accordingly, the inspection histories of both the constructions are displayed so as to enable a comparison. As a consequence, the development of the damage having occurred in the construction that is the inspection target in the first inspection result can be predicted with high accuracy” in [0014], see also inspection history display screen in Fig 18. Sagawa also discloses “Preferably, the information relating to the past images includes annotation data that represents an annotation
consisting of text data and a mark that is put on the past key image, and the template producing device copies the annotation data and includes it as annotation data for the present key image in the information relating to the present images” in [0016]. Sagawa further discloses “More preferably, the information relating to the past images includes link data that links the annotation to comments written in the past report, and the template producing device copies the link data to include it in the information relating to the present images” in [0017]; “After making the linkage of the respective findings
and diagnoses to the corresponding annotations, the CPU 40 creates annotation link data that represent linkage of the respective findings and diagnosis to the corresponding annotations. The annotation link data consists, for example, of data of a text start position and a text end position of the individual finding or diagnosis, and identification data of each annotation. The created annotation link data is recorded as metadata” in [0067].)
As to Claim 14, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the processor detects a change in the damage information over time based on the target structure-related information and the past structure-related information on the target structure, and uses the change in the damage information over time when extracting the damage similar to the damage detected on the target structure from the inspection history (Yamagishi discloses detecting a damage change over time in Fig 18. Sagawa further disclose “a report server is searched for a past report on past examination images taken from the same patient under similar condition. The past report contains an original image link data for linking a key image to an original image that is one of the past
examination images. Concerning imaging positions, correspondence data representative of correspondence between the present images and the past images is produced” in Abstract; “An image interpretation report making system of the present invention comprises a correspondence data producing device for producing correspondence data that shows correspondence between present images and past images with respect to their imaging positions; and a template producing device for producing a template for a present report on the basis of the correspondence data and a past report.” in [0011].)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Sagawa and Speasl et al. (US 2020/0184706 A1).
As to Claim 5, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1. The combination of Speasl further teaches wherein the selection of the target structure-related information is accepted through a selection of a three-dimensional model of a structure associated with the target structure-related information (Yamagishi discloses “in a case where a selection operation of selecting a second inspection result from among the one or more second inspection results displayed by the display unit is accepted, the retrieval unit retrieves, from the database, one or more second inspection results that correspond to a specific construction that is an inspection target in the second inspection result selected in the selection operation” in [0013]. Speasl further discloses “The media data and geospatial data may be first verified as genuine via a media certification process and then used to generate a 3D representation of at least part of a property, such as a building. The generated 3D representation may be wireframe only or may include textures layered upon wireframe, the textures generated from the images or video as well” in [0019].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Yamagishi and Sagawa with the teaching of Speasl so that a 3D representation of the property may be generated, and defects in the property may be detected by comparing the 3D representation to media depicting property defects (Speasl, Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Sagawa and Sharma et al. (US 9,244,917 B1).
As to Claim 9, Yamagishi in view of Sagawa teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the editing process accepts, as the edit to the comment template, a comment candidate selected from a plurality of comment candidates corresponding to the comment template (Sagawa discloses “The template may be displayed on a display device, and is edited on the display device, to complete the present report” in [0013]. Sharma further discloses “Process 700 selects (705) candidate templates corresponding to the annotated layouts. The candidate templates may be selected, and retrieved, from a library of predefined templates…The candidate templates that are selected include library templates having row/column formats that correspond so the possible layouts identified per Table 1, and annotated per Table 2” in C10L35-42. Here, the image template has similar function as a comment template.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Yamagishi and Sagawa with the teaching of Sharma so that a candidate template can be selected from a library of templates to meet a specific criteria.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIMING HE whose telephone number is (571)270-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached on 571-272-7773. 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.
/Weiming He/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights