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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipate by Boardman et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0301192 A1).
In considering claim 1, Boardman et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed a processor, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire an image group including a plurality of captured images obtained by imaging an object is met by selecting a group of the acquired images (e.g., a subset of the acquired images) may be selected for further analysis of the visual data of those images of the group (Fig. 1, page 2, paragraph #0015), 2) the claimed determine whether each captured image of the plurality of captured images satisfies a predetermined criterion, in the image group is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058), and 3) the claimed specify an imaging failure portion of a failure image for which it is determined that the criterion is not satisfied is met by determining the failure of the image (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 2, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to specify the imaging failure portion by specifying an adjacent relationship of the image group is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 3, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to include a display device that displays an adjacent relationship of the image group and the imaging failure portion is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 4, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to cause the display device to display the imaging failure portion on a composite image obtained by combining the captured images of the image group on the basis of the adjacent relationship is met by the displaying of the image and displaying the feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 3-4, paragraph #0019 and pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 5, the claimed wherein the display device displays a content of the failure image specified by the processor is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 6, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to cause the display device to display a confirmation screen as to whether to perform re-imaging on the failure image and to receive an instruction as to whether or not to perform the re-imaging is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 7, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to receive an instruction to perform enlargement display or reduction display on the failure image and to cause the display device to display the failure image in accordance with the received instruction is met by the displaying of the final completed 3D computer model of the object 200 and displaying the feedback messages (Fig. 2E, page 19, paragraph #0076 and pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 8, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to determine a recommended imaging parameter for the imaging failure portion on the basis of a content of the failure image is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 9, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to transmit identification information, which is for specifying the imaging failure portion, to a movable object including an imaging apparatus is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 10, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to transmit the imaging failure portion and the recommended imaging parameter to a movable object including an imaging apparatus is met by the displaying of the image and displaying the feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 3-4, paragraph #0019 and pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 11, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to perform image analysis on the captured image included in the image group to determine whether the captured image satisfies the criterion is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 12, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to acquire an imaging condition in a case where the captured image is captured and to determine whether the captured image satisfies the criterion on the basis of the imaging condition is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 13, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to specify an adjacent relationship of the image group from an association relationship of feature points in each captured image of the image group is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 14, the claimed wherein the processor is configured to specify an adjacent relationship of the image group on the basis of an imaging condition of the captured image and information about the object is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 15, Boardman et al. discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed wherein the processor is configured to specify the imaging failure portion by specifying an adjacent relationship of the image group based on information about an imaging condition of the captured image and information about the object is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058), and 2) the claimed the information about the object is three-dimensional model data is met by the displaying of the final completed 3D computer model of the object 200 (page 19, paragraph #0076).
In considering claim 16, the claimed wherein the imaging failure portion is a portion where the failure image has been captured is met by the determination of the quality of the image below a specified threshold or to otherwise not meet one or more specified quality criteria (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
In considering claim 17, the claimed wherein the object is any one of a civil engineering structure such as a bridge, a dam and a tunnel, and a building structure such as a building, a house, a wall, a pillar and a beam of a building is met by the 3D model of the object (Fig. 2J, pages 17-18, paragraph #0068) or datasets (page 24, paragraph #0100).
In considering claim 18, the claimed wherein imaging position information where the failure image has been captured and imaging posture information can be used in performing the re-imaging is met by the displaying of feedback messages (Fig. 2E, pages 14-15, paragraph #0058).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
June 9, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights