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 Arguments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are amended.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claim objections 2-6, 9, 11-12, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of Claims 2-6, 9, 11-12, and 15 have been withdrawn. However, a new objection to Claim 15 was issued in light of the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) for Claims 19-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation of Claims 19 - 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for Claims 11- 12 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 11-12 and 15 have been withdrawn. However, new 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejections are given for Claim 1 in light of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 of Claims 1-20 are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. A new rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is applied for Claims 1 and 19 under prior arts Salgian (US 20200005447 A1) in view of Mullins (US 20160049004 A1) and Ishii (US 20180011950 A1).
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the information of of all components”, which should be “the information of all components”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 19 recite “the pipeline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “the pipeline” and “wiring parts”. It is not clear if these limitations are a part of the air conditioner, rendering these limitations as indefinite.
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 § 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) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-8, 10-12, 13-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgian (US 20200005447 A1) in view of Mullins (US 20160049004 A1) and Ishii (US 20180011950 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Salgian teaches
A construction inspection support method (See Salgian Abstract “computer aided (i.e. support) 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”),
the first construction model being a scan model (See Para[0037] “the data acquisition system 102 may by a hand-held sensor package/device 200 as described in detail in FIG. 3. The hand-held sensor package/device 200 can obtain local relative measurements (i.e. detection data), and fine resolution images and videos, of the rebar structures” and Para[0038] “The data analysis system 110 includes 3D point cloud model generation system 120 that acquires a 3D representation of the scene (e.g., the rebar structure) from the rebar measurements 104 and rebar images/videos 106 from the data acquisition system 102 (i.e. the first construction model is a scan model that includes the detection data)”), the scan model being established by uploading the detection data to a cloud terminal so that the scan model is processed by the cloud terminal (See Para[0059] “The networks/cloud 220 (i.e. a cloud terminal) comprise one or more communication systems” and “hand-held sensor package 200 can communicate directly (i.e. the scan model, which includes the detection data, from 200 can be uploaded to the network 220, therefore sending data for an established scan) with body worn sensor package 210, and server 250 through WIFI, BLUETOOTH, or any other wireless or wired communication protocols (i.e. the scan model is processed by the cloud terminal to send the scan model either to the body worn sensor package 210 or the server 250)”).
Salgian is silent to the language of
a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated, and
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner.
Mullins teaches
a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated (See Para[0035] “The user wearable device 106 may generate a visualization of virtual objects (i.e. a scan model) based on the recognized physical object 102 (i.e. in a real space). For example, the user wearable device 106 may be looking at an air conditioning unit” and “the user may be able to see different components such as three-dimensional models of a virtual cover, a virtual circuit box (i.e. wiring parts), and a virtual control switch (i.e. a pipeline since a switch controls a flow of current, making it a pipeline for current) floating around (i.e. separated), on top of, or in any other predefined position relative to the physical object 102 (i.e. the air conditioner)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated like in Mullins in order to establish a clear field of use for the current construction inspection system, and to allow for accurate analysis of anomalies of detection data in the air conditioner.
Salgian and Mullins are silent to the language of
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner.
Ishii teaches
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner (See Para[0194] “a BIM model for performing an analysis of a coverage of equipment such as an Indoor unit of an air conditioner, a sensor, or a wireless access point is generated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian and Mullins wherein the second construction model is a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner like in Ishii in order to have an accurate model to compare the detection data of the first construction model.
With respect to Claim 2, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support method according to claim 1, further comprising:
acquiring the detection data, the acquiring the detection data including at least 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
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 Claim 4, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support method according to claim 2, wherein
the establishing the first construction model based on the detection data at the construction site includes
generating three-dimensional point cloud data based on the returned laser radar signal, and
establishing the first construction model based on the three-dimensional point cloud data. (Examiner notes that Claim 4 is a dependent claim to Claim 2, and Claim 4 recites limitations directed to an option (i.e. the returned laser radar signal) that was not selected by the Examiner in rejecting Claim 2, so no prior art rejection is applied to Claim 4).
With respect to Claim 6, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support method according to claim 2, wherein
the establishing the first construction model based on the detection data at the construction site includes
extracting a feature of the returned electromagnetic wave signal,
specifying information of a component at the construction site based on the feature of the returned electromagnetic wave signal, and
establishing the first construction model based on the information of the component at the construction site (Examiner notes that Claim 6 is a dependent claim to Claim 2, and Claim 6 recites limitations directed to an option (i.e. the returned electromagnetic wave signal) that was not selected by the Examiner in rejecting Claim 2, so no prior art rejection is applied to Claim 6).
With respect to Claim 7, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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 at least one of
when 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 (i.e. establishing the first construction model) provided by the BIM; and compares detected rebar with those in the BIM.”), and
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 12, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support method according to claim 11 wherein
the 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 includes
specifying a bounding box of the first construction model and a bounding box of the second construction model, and
overlapping a center point of the bounding box of the first construction model with a center point of the bounding box of the second construction model (Examiner notes that Claim 12 is a dependent claim to Claim 11, and Claim 12 recites limitations directed to an option (i.e. the 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) that was not selected by the Examiner in rejecting Claim 11, so no prior art rejection is applied to Claim 12).
With respect to Claim 13, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support method according to claim 14, wherein the information of of all components in the first construction model and the information of corresponding components in the second construction model include at least one of a position, angle, model number, size (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 (i.e. all the components) about the rebar structure (i.e. the first construction model) and the BIM (i.e. the second construction model) of the rebar” and “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, Mullins, and Ishii teach the construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii teach
The construction inspection support 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 support apparatus (See Salgian Abstract “inspection (i.e. support, as they help inspect) systems”) comprising:
a processor including (See Para[0082] “Embodiments may also be implemented as instructions stored using one or more machine-readable media, which may be read and executed by one or more processors”):
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”),
the first construction model being a scan model (See Para[0037] “the data acquisition system 102 may by a hand-held sensor package/device 200 as described in detail in FIG. 3. The hand-held sensor package/device 200 can obtain local relative measurements (i.e. detection data), and fine resolution images and videos, of the rebar structures” and Para[0038] “The data analysis system 110 includes 3D point cloud model generation system 120 that acquires a 3D representation of the scene (e.g., the rebar structure) from the rebar measurements 104 and rebar images/videos 106 from the data acquisition system 102 (i.e. the first construction model is a scan model that includes the detection data)”), the scan model being established by uploading the detection data to a cloud terminal so that the scan model is processed by the cloud terminal (See Para[0059] “The networks/cloud 220 (i.e. a cloud terminal) comprise one or more communication systems” and “hand-held sensor package 200 can communicate directly (i.e. the scan model, which includes the detection data, from 200 can be uploaded to the network 220, therefore sending data for an established scan) with body worn sensor package 210, and server 250 through WIFI, BLUETOOTH, or any other wireless or wired communication protocols (i.e. the scan model is processed by the cloud terminal to send the scan model either to the body worn sensor package 210 or the server 250)”).
Salgian is silent to the language of
a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated, and
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner.
Mullins teaches
a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated (See Para[0035] “The user wearable device 106 may generate a visualization of virtual objects (i.e. a scan model) based on the recognized physical object 102 (i.e. in a real space). For example, the user wearable device 106 may be looking at an air conditioning unit” and “the user may be able to see different components such as three-dimensional models of a virtual cover, a virtual circuit box (i.e. wiring parts), and a virtual control switch (i.e. a pipeline since a switch controls a flow of current, making it a pipeline for current) floating around (i.e. separated), on top of, or in any other predefined position relative to the physical object 102 (i.e. the air conditioner)”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian wherein a scan model of an air conditioner in a real space, and the air conditioner and the pipeline and wiring parts are separated like in Mullins in order to establish a clear field of use for the current construction inspection system, and to allow for accurate analysis of anomalies of detection data in the air conditioner.
Salgian and Mullins are silent to the language of
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner.
Ishii teaches
the second construction model being a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner (See Para[0194] “a BIM model for performing an analysis of a coverage of equipment such as an Indoor unit of an air conditioner, a sensor, or a wireless access point is generated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Salgian and Mullins wherein the second construction model is a building information modeling (BIM) model of the air conditioner like in Ishii in order to have an accurate model to compare the detection data of the first construction model.
With respect to Claim 20, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii teach
A construction inspection support system (See Salgian Abstract “computer aided (i.e. support) 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(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgian (US 20200005447 A1), Mullins (US 20160049004 A1), and Ishii (US 20180011950 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Taylor (US 20190197768 A1).
With respect to Claim 3, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii are silent to the language of
The construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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, Mullins, and Ishii teach are silent to the language of
The construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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 (US 20200005447 A1), Mullins (US 20160049004 A1), and Ishii (US 20180011950 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Lopez (US 20100324956 A1).
With respect to Claim 9, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii are silent to the language of
The construction inspection support method according to claim 7, wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes at least 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.
Nevertheless, Lopez teaches
The construction inspection method according to claim 7, wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes at least one of
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, Mullins, and Ishii wherein the positioning the second construction model at the construction site includes at least 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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 (US 20200005447 A1), Mullins (US 20160049004 A1), and Ishii (US 20180011950 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schowengerdt (US 20150205126 A1).
With respect to Claim 18, Salgian, Mullins, and Ishii are silent to the language of
The construction inspection support 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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, Mullins, and Ishii 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
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 MOSTOFA AHMED HISHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-8773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 4 p.m. ET.
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 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights