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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-6, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP2020020740A to KIMURA KOICHI.
Regarding claim 1,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches:
A state determination device comprising:
at least one memory storing a computer program; and
at least one processor configured to execute the computer program to acquire a state measurement value indicating a state of an area near an earth surface by analyzing observation information near the earth surface by a satellite-borne synthetic aperture radar; ([0015] – “an interference analysis unit that performs interference analysis on the plurality of SAR image data sets to obtain interference analysis result data… amount of displacement of each analysis point included in the interference analysis result data” Displacement of analysis point corresponds to state measurement value)
determine whether a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index in which a predetermined regularity may exist between the index and the state ([0025] – “correlation between the time-series displacement amount of each analysis point included in the interference analysis result data and the time-series data of each observation data for each observation coordinate included in the sensor observation data” [0026] – “the observation data (observation sensors) linked to each analysis point may be, for example, observation data (observation sensors) physically installed in any range, or data at the same altitude or of the same type of geological layer, or may be automatically associated with observation data (observation sensors) that are highly correlated” index value corresponds to observation data) or a relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value near the earth surface estimated from the value of the index (This limitation is listed in the alternative with the previous limitation and therefore only one is required by the claim.) satisfies the predetermined regularity; ([0016] – “estimating the cause of the amount of displacement of each analysis point included in the interference analysis result data based on either the presence or absence of correlation,” [0026] – “analyzing along a time series and deriving the cause using any one or a combination of the presence or absence of correlation… identifying, as necessary, the amount of displacement of the position of each observation point included in the interference analysis result data and whether there is a breakdown in correlation with the sensor observation data group”) and
output determination result information indicating that the state is abnormal ([0026] – “the displacement of this corner reflector can be estimated (extracted) as a point of interest from the perspective of a landslide” [0027] – “repair work estimation unit 20 extracts the type of repair work related to the estimation result for the location of the analysis point”) when the relationship between the value of the index and the state measurement value or the relationship between the state estimation value and the state measurement value does not satisfy the predetermined regularity. ([0026] – “for example, if the displacement of a corner reflector (analysis point) installed on the mountainside is captured, and the correlation between the time series relationship of this displacement and the time series displacement of the measurement value of a water level meter (sensor device) installed in the nearby space is broken, the displacement of this corner reflector can be estimated (extracted) as a point of interest from the perspective of a landslide… identifying, as necessary, the amount of displacement of the position of each observation point included in the interference analysis result data and whether there is a breakdown in correlation with the sensor observation data group, behavior that deviates from nominal values compared to past data in the sensor observation data group, or whether the sensor observation data group shows a similar trend to past displacement events”)
Regarding claim 2,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined regularity indicates that at least one of a correlation, a linear relationship, and a relationship in which simulation of the state based on the index is possible is established between the index and the state. ([0025] – “correlation between the time-series displacement amount of each analysis point included in the interference analysis result data and the time-series data of each observation data for each observation coordinate included in the sensor observation data” [0026] – “the observation data (observation sensors) linked to each analysis point may be, for example, observation data (observation sensors) physically installed in any range, or data at the same altitude or of the same type of geological layer, or may be automatically associated with observation data (observation sensors) that are highly correlated using machine learning… whether there is a breakdown in correlation” A breakdown in correlation requires that correlation was established.)
Regarding claim 3,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
The state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to
calculate the state estimation value from the index using a calculation criterion indicating the predetermined regularity, and
determine whether an absolute value of a difference between the state measurement value and the state estimation value is larger than a threshold, and
output the determination result information indicating that the state is abnormal when the absolute value is larger than the threshold. (In regard to claim 3 the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index" is listed in the alternative with “a relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value.” If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, KIMURA KOICHI teaches a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 3 further limits another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., it further limits the relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value by further limiting the calculation of the state estimation value and the determinations made using the alternative relationship)
Regarding claim 4,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 3, wherein the calculation criterion is an estimation model that has learned a relationship between the index and the state in the past. (In regard to claim 4 the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index" is listed in the alternative with “a relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value.” If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, KIMURA KOICHI teaches a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 4 further limits another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., it further limits the relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value by further limiting the calculation of the state estimation value)
Regarding claim 5,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer program to generate or update the estimation model. (In regard to claim 5 the limitation(s) recited is not required to be part of the claimed invention. Parent claim 1 teaches alternative limitations, i.e., "a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index" is listed in the alternative with “a relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value.” If a parent claim includes alternative limitations, and the reference teaches one of them, further limitations to the other alternative(s) in dependent claims are not required limitations. See Ex parte Werner, Appeal 2019-001448, Application No. 15/109,888, March 23, 2020, 15 pages. Here, KIMURA KOICHI teaches a relationship between the state measurement value and a value of an index, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1. Claim 5 further limits another alternative/other alternatives, i.e., it further limits the relationship between the state measurement value and a state estimation value by further limiting the estimation model used to calculate the state estimation value)
Regarding claim 6,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the state indicates a displacement amount of a ground surface near the earth surface or a position of a structure existing on the ground surface, or a moisture amount included in an earth surface near the earth surface. ([0015] – “an interference analysis unit that performs interference analysis on the plurality of SAR image data sets to obtain interference analysis result data… amount of displacement of each analysis point included in the interference analysis result data” [0026] – “ground surface fluctuations (displacement of the analysis point of a predetermined amount/speed or greater)… displacement at the analysis point is deterioration of infrastructure structures such as pavement surfaces or bridges,” State measurement value corresponds to displacement of analysis point indicating a state corresponding to displacement of a ground surface / structure)
Regarding claim 8,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 1, wherein
the index ([0026] – sensor observation data) indicates at least one of a natural factor ([0026] – “sensor observation data… sensor equipment (such as water level gauges, moisture gauges, thermometers, and vibration meters depending on the monitoring content)”) and a human factor that affect the state, ([0026] – “sensor observation data… sensor equipment (such as… vibration meters)… in areas or buildings to be monitored (near… underground construction sites, high-rise building construction sites)”)
the natural factor indicates at least one of a temperature, a precipitation amount, a groundwater amount, and a geological feature near the earth surface, and ([0026] – “sensor observation data… sensor equipment (such as water level gauges, moisture gauges, thermometers)… in areas or buildings to be monitored (near rivers, embankment areas…)”)
the human factor indicates at least one of construction on the ground near the earth surface and a traffic volume near the earth surface. ([0026] – “sensor observation data… sensor equipment (such as… vibration meters)… in areas or buildings to be monitored (near… underground construction sites, high-rise building construction sites)”)
Regarding claim(s) 9, 11-15,
Claim(s) 9, 11-15 is/are method claims corresponding to system claim(s) 1-6, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 11-15 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 2-6.
Regarding claim(s) 10, 16-20,
Claim(s) 10, 16-20 is/are non-transitory computer readable recording media claims corresponding to system claim(s) 1-6, respectively. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 10, 16-20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1-6.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2020020740A to KIMURA KOICHI in view of JP2020020707A to MATSUMOTO TAKASHI.
Regarding claim 7,
KIMURA KOICHI teaches the invention as claimed and discussed above.
KIMURA KOICHI further teaches:
The state determination device according to claim 1, wherein the index indicates an elapsed time ([0025-26] – “time-series data of each observation data for each observation coordinate”)
MATSUMOTO TAKASHI teaches:
the index indicates an elapsed time from a predetermined time. ([0008] – “The invention described in claim 1 is a method for acquiring a threshold value for determining an abnormal state of a natural phenomenon based on the fluctuations in the quantitative values of the natural phenomenon that can be acquired continuously, and is characterized by comprising a measurement value acquisition step for acquiring measurement values of the quantitative values measured at regular time intervals, a predicted value calculation step for calculating a predicted value at each acquisition time based on a predetermined model applied to the natural phenomenon from the acquired measurement values and acquisition times, and a threshold value determination step for determining a threshold value for determining an abnormal state based on the difference between the acquired measurement values and the calculated predicted value.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied MATSUMOTO TAKASHI’s known technique to KIMURA KOICHI’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) KIMURA KOICHI teaches a base method of abnormal state determination using time-series observation data; (2) MATSUMOTO TAKASHI teaches a specific technique of abnormal state determination using measurement data acquired at regular time intervals; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648