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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/23 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imagawa et al US 2020/0378900 in view of Lee et al US 2009/0303469.
Regarding claim 1, Imagawa et al teaches a method for computing a crack line length in a safety assessment target building (Inspection system 100 (paragraph 0044) comprising:
analyzing, by a worker terminal, photographic images continuously captured while a worker moves along a crack line present in an inspection target area in a photographing space, which is a space where the worker performs photography (a digital video camera or a digital still camera that includes an image sensor. Imaging device 110 captures images of structure 99 over time. More specifically, imaging device 110 captures a plurality of images of structure 99 while structure 99 is subjected to varying loads (paragraph 0045), to generate shape information of the crack line (plurality of images are images of an identical portion of structure 99 captured at mutually different times. More specific examples of the plurality of images include a plurality of frames included in video. The portion of structure 99 is, for example, a portion having a crack on its surface (paragraph 0046 and figs 1 and 4) Note: the shape information is the identification of a crack on a surface, which would be of a shape in order to be identified; and
Imagawa et al fails to teach (b) computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line;
Lee et al teaches (b) computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line (performing continuously a line scan on the crack parts in the captured images (S140); analyzing pixel information in the scan lines (S150); inspecting pixels with a dramatically changed light intensity and detecting edges in the scan lines (S160); inspecting pixels with restored light intensity and detecting edges in the scan lines (S170); calculating the length of crack growth by using the detected edges (S180); and calculating a width of the crack by using the detected edges (S190) (paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Imagawa et al to include: computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify a crack in a structure.
Regarding claim 2, Imagawa et al in view of Lee et al teaches comprising, before the step (a), continuously measuring, by the worker terminal, a separation distance between the worker terminal and the inspection target area while moving along the crack line and continuously capturing images by the worker terminal (Imagawa et al: Imaging device 110 captures images of structure 99 over time. More specifically, imaging device 110 captures a plurality of images of structure 99 while structure 99 is subjected to varying loads (paragraph 0045) Fig 1 displays the distance between the imaging device 110 (worker terminal) and structure 99, it would be obvious that the imaging device and structure 99 would be at a separation distance in order to take pictures of a crack in the structure.
Regarding claim 3, Imagawa et al teaches a worker terminal comprising a program installed therein to execute the method for computing a crack line length in a safety assessment target building (Inspection device 120 by the processor executing the software program (paragraph 0047) program causes a computer to execute an inspection method of inspecting a structure with a crack (paragraph 0112-0113)
a method for computing a crack line length in a safety assessment target building (Inspection system 100 (paragraph 0044) comprising:
analyzing, by a worker terminal, photographic images continuously captured while a worker moves along a crack line present in an inspection target area in a photographing space, which is a space where the worker performs photography (a digital video camera or a digital still camera that includes an image sensor. Imaging device 110 captures images of structure 99 over time. More specifically, imaging device 110 captures a plurality of images of structure 99 while structure 99 is subjected to varying loads (paragraph 0045), to generate shape information of the crack line (plurality of images are images of an identical portion of structure 99 captured at mutually different times. More specific examples of the plurality of images include a plurality of frames included in video. The portion of structure 99 is, for example, a portion having a crack on its surface (paragraph 0046 and figs 1 and 4) Note: the shape information is the identification of a crack on a surface, which would be of a shape in order to be identified; and
Imagawa et al fails to teach (b) computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line;
Lee et al teaches (b) computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line (performing continuously a line scan on the crack parts in the captured images (S140); analyzing pixel information in the scan lines (S150); inspecting pixels with a dramatically changed light intensity and detecting edges in the scan lines (S160); inspecting pixels with restored light intensity and detecting edges in the scan lines (S170); calculating the length of crack growth by using the detected edges (S180); and calculating a width of the crack by using the detected edges (S190) (paragraph 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Imagawa et al to include: computing, by the worker terminal, a length of the crack line based on the shape information of the crack line.
The reason of doing so would be to accurately identify a crack in a structure.
Regarding claim 4, Imagawa et al teaches a worker terminal comprising a program installed therein to execute the method for computing a crack line length in a safety assessment target building (Inspection device 120 by the processor executing the software program. Inspection device 120 achieves its functions described below by the processor executing the software program (paragraph 0047). program causes a computer to execute an inspection method of inspecting a structure with a crack (paragraph 0112-0113)
before the step (a), continuously measuring, by the worker terminal, a separation distance between the worker terminal and the inspection target area while moving along the crack line and continuously capturing images by the worker terminal (Imagawa et al: Imaging device 110 captures images of structure 99 over time. More specifically, imaging device 110 captures a plurality of images of structure 99 while structure 99 is subjected to varying loads (paragraph 0045) Fig 1 displays the distance between the imaging device 110 (worker terminal) and structure 99, it would be obvious that the imaging device and structure 99 would be at a separation distance in order to take pictures of a crack in the structure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Michael Burleson whose telephone number is (571) 272-7460 and fax number is (571) 273-7460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. – 4:30p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270- 3438.
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.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2683
Michael Burleson
December 13, 2025
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 12/17/2025