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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pereira (“Automatic Identification and Geometrical Modeling of Steel Rivets of Historical Structures from Lidar Data”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1, Pereira (“Automatic Identification and Geometrical Modeling of Steel Rivets of Historical Structures from Lidar Data”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
An analysis device (see, for example, page 9, Materials) for generating point cloud data of a structure evaluation object (see, for example, pages 2-3, laser scanning for structural analysis), the analysis device comprising a processor configured to execute operations comprising:
receiving point cloud data of a structure evaluation target area from a laser scanner device (pages 3-4, point clouds from laser scanning registered within a coordinate system – a region of interest that contains the support plane with the rivets is selected)
removing point cloud data other than that of the structure evaluation object from the point cloud data (pages 4-6, the points belonging to the rivets are isolated out from the support plane of the rivets); and
extracting point cloud data of a place necessary for structure evaluation from the removed point cloud data (pages 5-9, after extraction of the point cloud points belonging to the rivets, a data file is generated for the point cloud and the data is exported into a 3D model that can be used for structural evaluation)
Regarding claim 2, Pereira additionally discloses:
identifying a point cloud data surface in which a length of a normal line between a 2D internal cross section of a structure and the point cloud data surface is equal to or longer than a predetermined length (Figure 4, pages 4-5, dp(i) is orthogonal (“normal”) to the cross section— if the distance dp(i) exceeds a given threshold value, the points are considered as points of the rivet head), and
removing a region obtained by extending the identified point cloud data surface in a direction in which the structure extends (pages 4-6, the points belonging to the rivets are isolated out from the support plane of the rivets)
Regarding claim 3, Pereira additionally discloses:
estimating a cross-sectional line shape of the structure evaluation object hidden by accessories installed inside the structure evaluation target area from a cross-sectional line shape of the point cloud data (Figure 4, pages 4-5, an estimate is made across sectional line shape FF of the point cloud of the support plane including rivets), and
removing a region obtained by extending the estimated cross-sectional line shape in a direction in which the structure extends (pages 4-6, the points belonging to the rivets are isolated out from the support plane of the rivets)
Regarding claim 6, the structural elements of device claim 1 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, arguments analogous to claims 1 and 6 are applicable. The computer readable medium is inherently taught as evidenced by the disclosed computing systems executing the described methods (see page 9 of Pereira).
Regarding claim 10, the structural elements of device claim 2 perform all of the steps of method claim 10. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, the structural elements of device claim 3 perform all of the steps of method claim 11. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to claims 2 and 10 are applicable. The computer readable medium is inherently taught as evidenced by the disclosed computing systems executing the described methods (see page 9 of Pereira).
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to claims 3 and 11 are applicable. The computer readable medium is inherently taught as evidenced by the disclosed computing systems executing the described methods (see page 9 of Pereira).
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) 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Sánchez-Aparicio (“The combination of geomatic approaches and operational modal analysis to improve calibration of finite element models: A case of study in Saint Torcato Church”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 4, Pereira discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 1).
Pereira additionally discloses:
wherein the extracting further comprises:
identifying a place necessary for structure evaluation of finite element method analysis (pages 14-15, Figure 17, the areas of high stress concentration can be detected and must be taken into account in the structural analysis because if they are excessively large or close to a beam edge, they can be dangerous - see the FEM analysis of Figure 17), and
extracting point cloud data (pages 5-9, after extraction of the point cloud points belonging to the rivets, a data file is generated for the point cloud and the data is exported into a 3D model that can be used for structural evaluation)
Even assuming arguendo Pereira does not explicitly disclose:
identifying a place necessary for structure evaluation of finite element method analysis
Sánchez-Aparicio (“The combination of geomatic approaches and operational modal analysis to improve calibration of finite element models: A case of study in Saint Torcato Church”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
identifying a place necessary for structure evaluation of finite element method analysis (pages 118-121, Figure 3, features are segmented/extracted from the structure which can be used for a FEM package)
extracting point cloud data (pages 120-121, an area of interest including relevant features can be extracted from the point cloud)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Sánchez-Aparicio with the system of Pereira such that the system would have been configured to identify a place necessary for structure evaluation of finite element method analysis as described in Sánchez-Aparicio. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “establishing a robust methodology that serves as a template for subsequent restoration actions” (page 119 of the Sánchez-Aparicio reference).
Regarding claim 8, Pereira discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 2). The additional limitations of claim 8 mirror those of claim 4. Claim 8 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 9, Pereira discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 3). The additional limitations of claim 9 mirror those of claim 4. Claim 9 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, Pereira discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 6). The additional limitations of claim 12 are analogous to those of claim 4. Claim 12 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, Pereira discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 10). The additional limitations of claim 14 are analogous to those of claim 4. Claim 14 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Pereira discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 11). The additional limitations of claim 15 are analogous to those of claim 4. Claim 15 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 18, Pereira discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 7). The additional limitations of claim 18 are analogous to those of claim 4. Claim 18 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 20, Pereira discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 16). The additional limitations of claim 20 are analogous to those of claim 4. Claim 20 is therefore similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pereira in view of Sánchez-Aparicio in further view of Truong-Hong (“Extracting Bridge Components from a Laser Scanning Point Cloud”, copy provided, see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pereira and Sánchez-Aparicio discloses the device of the parent claim (claim 4).
Pereira additionally discloses:
wherein the extracting further comprises:
identifying a 3D point cloud data region to be extracted (pages 5-9, after extraction of the point cloud points belonging to the rivets, a data file is generated for the point cloud and the data is exported into a 3D model that can be used for structural evaluation);
Pereira does not explicitly disclose:
extracting point cloud data included in the region by extending a 2D internal cross section, obtained by dividing the 2D internal cross section of the structure into two in a floor slab direction, in a direction in which the structure extends.
Truong-Hong (“Extracting Bridge Components from a Laser Scanning Point Cloud”, copy provided, see PTO-892) discloses:
identifying a 3D point cloud data region to be extracted (page 729, a point cloud of a superstructure is extracted)
extracting point cloud data included in the region by extending a 2D internal cross section, obtained by dividing the 2D internal cross section of the structure into two in a floor slab direction, in a direction in which the structure extends (pages 729-731, the superstructure is divided into Ssupstr.top and Ssupstr.bot, which are both horizontal planar surfaces in a ground/floor slab direction – additionally see Figure 2 on page 724 – the extraction occurs for both components)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the system of Truong-Hong with the combination of Pereira and Sánchez-Aparicio such that the system would have extracted point cloud data included in the region by extending a 2D internal cross section, obtained by dividing the 2D internal cross section of the structure into two in a floor slab direction, in a direction in which the structure extends as described in Truong-Hong. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to implement a system capable of “extracting structural components…in [an] automated manner” (page 723 of the Truong-Hong reference).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pereira and Sánchez-Aparicio discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 12). The additional limitations of claim 13 are analogous to those of claim 5. Claim 13 is therefore similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pereira and Sánchez-Aparicio discloses the method of the parent claim (claim 18). The additional limitations of claim 19 are analogous to those of claim 5. Claim 19 is therefore similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R WALLACE whose telephone number is (571)270-1577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 8:30-5 PM.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/JOHN R WALLACE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682