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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/22/26 is being considered by the examiner.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 5-7 and 10-12 are amended. Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 5-12 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of independent claims 1 and
11-12 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamagishi et al. (US 2018/0182090 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 space for entering a type of detected damage and comments for the detected damage (Yamagishi discloses a template for an inspection report 13 as shown in Fig 2-3. Here, the template may include construction information, usage conditions, locational and environmental conditions and damage and image data.); and
an inspection history of structures, including: structure-related information pertaining to each structure inspected in the past (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]); and
comments on damage to each structure prepared during past inspections, the comments being text data indicating a basis and/or rationale for determination of a countermeasure category for the damage, and soundness of each structure (Yamagishi discloses “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]), 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 extracted comments on damage prepared during the past inspection for the extracted structure-related information from the database; further extract, based on the detected type of damage, comments on damage similar to the detected type of damage, from the extracted comments on damage prepared during the past inspection (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 text data of a comment on damage to the target structure to be entered into the inspection report on a basis of the extracted comments on damage for a structure similar to the target structure and for damage similar to the detected type of damage to the target structure; and display the text data of the comment 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].)
As to Claim 6, Yamagishi 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 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 10, Yamagishi 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi et al. (US 2018/0182090 A1) in view of Speasl et al. (US 2020/0184706 A1).
As to Claim 5, Yamagishi 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 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).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamagishi in view of Speasl et al. (US 2020/0014816 A1, hereinafter Speasl2).
As to Claim 8, Yamagishi teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor executes an editing process of accepting an edit to the comment and modifying the comment (Speasl2 further discloses “FIG. 5A illustrates a user interface for creating or editing a title, category, or comment for an entire incident” in [0011]; “Additional features integrated to the system are dynamic sketching tools to allow users to draw/sketch a property detail with measurement as an adjuster generates an on-site damage reports and adds Incident titles, it's category and voice to text, dynamic forms for data block inputs or keyboard entered comments along with the incident's media and subsequent media details including media title, media group(s), media description is fully integrated into the web dynamic report assembling process and into the reports when the reports function is activated, and a report is generated” in [0034].)
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 Speasl2 so as to provide a user interface for creating or editing a title, category, or comment for an entire incident (Speasl2, [0011]).
As to Claim 9, Yamagishi in view of Speasl2 teaches The structure inspection assistance apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the editing process accepts, as the edit to the comment, a comment candidate selected from a plurality of comment candidates corresponding to the comment (Speasl2 discloses “New incident creation provides a number of possible processes at step 415, including adding incident title, adding emoji/icons to incident title, selecting/adding incident category, selecting/adding incident comment…” in [0054].)
Conclusion
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEIMING HE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights