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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para[0155] recites “Feature”. The objection can be overcome by removing “Feature” at the end of Para[0155].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, and 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, 3, 9, 11, and 15 recites “including one of…and” when reciting a list of claim limitations. The objection can be overcome by replacing “and” with “or”.
Claim 15 recites “includes at least one of…and” when reciting a list of claim limitations. The objection can be overcome by replacing “and” with “or”.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
In Claim 19, a modeling unit, a comparison unit, a confirmation unit, and a sharing unit have the corresponding structure of a computer see Para[0073] of the instant application.
In Claim 20, a terminal device and a construction inspection apparatus which has the corresponding structure of a computer see Para[0073] of the instant application.
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.
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 11-12 and 15 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.
Claim 11 recites “before establishing the first construction model, matching the coordinate point of the first construction model”. It is unclear how the coordinate points of the first construction model can be matched before the model is established. Therefore claim 11 and further dependent claim 12 is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “the information of the component”. Claim 15 is a dependent claim of Claim 14, which recites “information of all components” and “information of corresponding components”. Hence, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims that depend on the above rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) are also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-8, 10-11, 13-17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salgian (US 20200005447 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Salgian teaches
A construction inspection method (See Salgian Abstract “computer aided rebar measurement and inspection systems”) comprising:
establishing a first construction model (See Salgian Abstract “3D point cloud model representation”) based on detection data (See Salgian Abstract “fine-level rebar measurements”) at a construction site (See Salgian Para[0033] “Embodiments of the present invention can ascertain the compliance of the construction of rebar structure with respect to the BIM.”);
comparing the first construction model with a previously established second construction model based on construction design data (See Salgian Abstract “3D Building Information Model (BIM)”) to acquire a comparison result (See Salgian Abstract “determine any discrepancies between them”);
confirming an inspection result of a construction in accordance with the comparison result (See Salgian Para[0031] “generating a compliance report”); and
sharing the inspection result with a user (See Salgian Para[0032] “ provide an interface and visualization system for user interaction and display of results”).
With respect to Claim 2, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring the detection data, the acquiring the detection data including one of
scanning the construction site by a laser radar sensor to acquire a returned laser radar signal,
capturing the construction site by an imaging device (See Salgian Para[0033] “acquires 3D measurements and images from the scene using a cameras”) to acquire an image signal (See Salgian Para[0033] “ to get mm-level local measurements of the rebar structure”), and (i.e. or)
transmitting a high-frequency electromagnetic wave to the construction site by a ground penetrating radar device to acquire a returned electromagnetic wave signal.
With respect to claims 4, 6 and 12, the claim limitations are directed to unexamined alternative limitations in claim 2 and 11 and are therefore not further limiting and not rejected.
With respect to Claim 7, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
before comparing the first construction model with the second construction model,
positioning the second construction model at the construction site to superimpose the second construction model on a construction area (See Salgian Para[0033] “refines alignment between the 3D point clouds measured to the 3D model provided by the BIM; and compares detected rebar with those in the BIM (i.e. comparing the first construction model with the second construction model)”) and
displaying the second construction model by an augmented reality device (See Salgian Para[0034] “Various embodiments of the computer aided rebar measurement and inspection system (“CARMIS”) and methods and, more particularly, to methods and systems for using augmented reality and localization techniques to assist in performing fine level inspections and comparisons to 3D model of rebar structures, are now described in detail with respect to FIGS. 1-9.”).
With respect to Claim 8, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 7, further comprising:
displaying the first construction model and the comparison result by the augmented reality device (See Salgian Para[0034] “Various embodiments of the computer aided rebar measurement and inspection system (“CARMIS”) and methods and, more particularly, to methods and systems for using augmented reality and localization techniques to assist in performing fine level inspections and comparisons to 3D model of rebar structures, are now described in detail with respect to FIGS. 1-9.”).
With respect to Claim 10, the construction inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
matching a coordinate point of the first construction model to coincide with a coordinate point of the second construction model (See Salgian Para[0033] “refines alignment between the 3D point clouds measured to the 3D model provided by the BIM”).
With respect to Claim 11, the construction inspection method according to claim 10, wherein the matching the coordinate point of the first construction model to coincide with the coordinate point of the second construction model includes one of
before establishing the first construction model, matching the coordinate point of the first construction model to coincide with the coordinate point of the second construction model (See Salgian Para[0033] “refines alignment between the 3D point clouds measured to the 3D model provided by the BIM; and compares detected rebar with those in the BIM.”), and (i.e. or)
matching the coordinate point of the first construction model to coincide with the coordinate point of the second construction model when comparing the first construction model with the second construction model.
With respect to Claim 13, Salgian teachesthe construction inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the comparing the first construction model with the previously established second construction model based on the construction design data to acquire the comparison result includes
performing collisional verification between the first construction model and the second construction model to acquire the comparison result (See Salgian Para[0051] “The rebar joint detection system 150 detects rebar joints by (1) locating all intersections (i.e. collisional verification) of a rebar with other rebar”).
With respect to Claim 14, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 1, wherein the comparing the first construction model with the previously established second construction model based on the construction design data to acquire the comparison result includes
comparing information of all components in the first construction model with information of corresponding components in the second construction model one by one to specify a component having a mismatch (See Salgian Para[0053] “ The discrepancy detection system 160 performs the comparison with the BIM and determines any discrepancies between the measurements and information obtained about the rebar structure and the BIM of the rebar.” and “In some embodiments, the discrepancies may be visually detected by displaying the BIM 170, or portion thereof, overlaid on the 3D point cloud model generated as shown in FIG. 13D.”).
With respect to Claim 15, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 14, wherein the information of the component includes at least one of a position, angle, model number, size (See Salgian Para[0053] “differences in the diameter/thickness of the rebar”), name, identifier, color, category, serial number, brand, material, and surface precision of the component.
With respect to Claim 16, Salgian teaches the construction inspection method according to claim 14, further comprising:
marking the component having the mismatch in the second construction model (See Salgian Para[0053] “In some embodiments, the measured data is compared to the model data, and values that exceed a predetermined threshold (e.g., 0.1-25% of expected value) may be flagged as a discrepancy and included in the compliance report.”); and
displaying, by an augmented reality device, the second construction model in
which the component having the mismatch is marked (See Salgian Para[0053] “ The discrepancy detection system 160 performs the comparison with the BIM and determines any discrepancies between the measurements and information obtained about the rebar structure and the BIM of the rebar.” and “In some embodiments, the discrepancies may be visually detected by displaying the BIM 170, or portion thereof, overlaid on the 3D point cloud model generated as shown in FIG. 13D.”).
With respect to Claim 17, Salgian teaches
The construction inspection method according to claim 14, wherein the confirming the inspection result of the construction in accordance with the comparison result includes
comparing the mismatch with an inspection standard (See Salgian Para[0053] “In some embodiments, the measured data is compared to the model data, and values that exceed a predetermined threshold (e.g., 0.1-25% of expected value) may be flagged as a discrepancy”), and
generating the inspection result in accordance with the comparison result (See Salgian Para[0053] “In some embodiments, the measured data is compared to the model data, and values that exceed a predetermined threshold (e.g., 0.1-25% of expected value) may be flagged as a discrepancy and included in the compliance report.”).
With respect to Claim 19, Salgian teaches
A construction inspection apparatus (See Salgian Abstract “inspection systems”) comprising:
a modeling unit (See Salgian Abstract “3D point cloud model generation system”) configured to establish a first construction model (See Salgian Abstract “3D point cloud model representation”) based on detection data (See Salgian Abstract “fine-level rebar measurements”) at a construction site (See Salgian Para[0033] “Embodiments of the present invention can ascertain the compliance of the construction of rebar structure with respect to the BIM.”);
a comparison unit (See Salgian Abstract “discrepancy detection system”) configured to compare the first construction model with a previously established second construction model based on construction design data (See Salgian Abstract “3D Building Information Model (BIM)”) to acquire a comparison result (See Salgian Abstract “determine any discrepancies between them”);
a confirmation unit (See Salgian Para[0031] “compliance report”) configured to confirm an inspection result of a construction in accordance with the comparison result (See Salgian Para[0031] “generating a compliance report”); and
a sharing unit (See Salgian Para[0057] “The data visualization system 184 can include a display screen to output what the camera is currently capturing or a comparison image of BIM vs. calculated values.”) configured to share the inspection result with a user (See Salgian Para[0032] “ provide an interface and visualization system for user interaction and display of results”).
With respect to Claim 20, Salgian teaches
A construction inspection system (See Salgian Abstract “computer aided rebar measurement and inspection systems”) including the construction inspection apparatus according to claim 19, the construction inspection system further comprising:
a terminal device (See Salgian Para[0037] “For example, in some embodiments, the data acquisition system 102 may by a hand-held sensor package/device 200 as described in detail in FIG. 3.”) configured to acquire detection data (See Salgian Abstract “fine-level rebar measurements”) at a construction site (See Salgian Para[0033] “Embodiments of the present invention can ascertain the compliance of the construction of rebar structure with respect to the BIM.”),
the construction inspection apparatus (See Salgian Abstract “inspection systems”) being configured to confirm an inspection result of a construction based on the detection data at the construction site and a previously established second construction model based on construction design data (See Salgian Para[0031] “generating a compliance report”).
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) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgian as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 20190197768 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Salgian is silent to the language of
The construction inspection method according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the laser radar sensor is provided in an augmented reality device, and the imaging device is provided in an unmanned device or a robot.
Taylor teaches the imaging device is provided in an unmanned device or a robot (See Taylor Para[0070] “the robot 108 is configured to capture the object 130 (e.g. using image sensors, depth cameras, or other sensors) from different locations, thereby capturing the object 130 from different angles”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein the imaging device is provided in an unmanned device or a robot such as that in Taylor.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Salgian because Taylor teaches a robot that can capture images of an object through remote control by a human, which will allow for a more efficient and accurate method of gathering image data for subsequent analysis of a construction model.
With respect to Claim 5, Salgian is silent to the language of
The construction inspection method according to claim 2, wherein the establishing the first construction model based on the detection data at the construction site includes
acquiring image data captured at multiple angles in the image signal,
processing the image data captured at the multiple angles to acquire omnidirectional image data, and
establishing the first construction model based on the omnidirectional image data.
Nevertheless, Taylor teaches
acquiring image data captured at multiple angles in the image signal (See Taylor Para[0070] “the robot 108 is configured to capture the object 130 (e.g. using image sensors, depth cameras, or other sensors) from different locations, thereby capturing the object 130 from different angles”),
processing the image data captured at the multiple angles to acquire omnidirectional image data (See Taylor Para[0070] “It will be appreciated that by capturing the object 130 from multiple angles/directions, more accurate modeling of the 3D structure and surface texture is possible.”), and
establishing the first construction model based on the omnidirectional image data (See Taylor Para[0070] “It will be appreciated that by capturing the object 130 from multiple angles/directions, more accurate modeling of the 3D structure and surface texture is possible.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein the establishing the first construction model based on the detection data at the construction site includes acquiring image data captured at multiple angles in the image signal, processing the image data captured at the multiple angles to acquire omnidirectional image data, and establishing the first construction model based on the omnidirectional image data as done like that in Taylor.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Salgian because Taylor teaches a robot that can capture images of an object in a room at multiple angles, which will allow for a clearer and more accurate image of the object being analyzed.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgian as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lopez (US 20100324956 A1).
With respect to Claim 9, Salgian is silent to the language of
The construction inspection method according to claim 7, wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes one
positioning with two location points at the construction area,
positioning with a wall at the construction area, and
positioning by scanning a two-dimensional code installed at the construction area.
Nevertheless, Lopez teaches
The construction inspection method according to claim 7, wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes one
positioning with two location points at the construction area,
positioning with a wall at the construction area (See Lopez Para[0584] “The parametric symbol and/or construction plan element will typically automatically, properly and almost instantaneously align with the wall and auto-embed itself into the wall, thereby, permitting the user to see how the parametric symbol and/or construction plan element will look in the wall, or in a room that contains the wall.”), and
positioning by scanning a two-dimensional code installed at the construction area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes one of positioning with two location points at the construction area, positioning with a wall at the construction area, and positioning by scanning a two-dimensional code installed at the construction area such as that of Lopez.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Salgian because Lopez teaches a method to align a construction plan element with a wall virtually, which will allow for efficient visualization of the prospective construction before physically building it.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgian as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schowengerdt (US 20150205126 A1).
With respect to Claim 18, Salgian is silent to the language of
The construction inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the inspection result by a virtual reality device.
Nevertheless, Schowengerdt teaches
The construction inspection method according to claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the inspection result by a virtual reality device (See Schowengerdt Para[0019] “In another embodiment, a virtual reality display system comprises a plurality of optical fibers to generate light beams associated with one or more images to be presented to a user”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein displaying the inspection result by a virtual reality device is done such as that of Schowengerdt.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Salgian because Schowengerdt teaches a method to display images via a virtual reality display system, which will allow for a more efficient way to observe and identify potential discrepancies in the first construction and second construction models.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET, Friday 7:00 a.m. - 3 p.m. ET. Every other Friday off.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863