DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The preliminary amendment of 04/04/2024 is noted wherein claims 9-13 were cancelled.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/038709 filed 10/20/2021
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 1-5 and 17-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the trajectory display means" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been amended in the preliminary amendment of 04/04/2024, to remove any “means” language however this reference thereto still exists hence the rejection is warranted. Note, claims 2-5 depend upon claim 1 and are therefore at least inherently included herein.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the image data display means" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim has been amended in the preliminary amendment of 04/04/2024, to remove any “means” language however this reference thereto still exists hence the rejection is warranted. Note, claim 18 depends upon claim 17 and is therefore at least inherently included herein.
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) 1-3, 6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togashi et al. (JP2017-083619) and Ichinohe et al. (JP2018-017102). (see English translations of each specification).
In reference to claim 1, Togashi et al. discloses a facility inspection display device (see paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 32, 100, 118 and Figures 1, 2, 15, 20, 30, 33 wherein Togashi et al. discloses a road monitoring system using a road monitor device that obtains a three-dimensional measurement around the road and a vehicle as it travels on the road. Togashi et al. explicitly discloses measuring and calculating a road surface height with reference to where a tire of the vehicle makes contacts thereto and creating event identifiers for particular references which don’t meet a threshold. Togashi et al. explicitly refers to such an event for example as a “road collapse” or in other words a pothole. Note, it is clear that such a measurement and event identifying process in Togashi et al. is functionally equivalent to an “inspection” process.) comprising:
a trajectory display unit configured to display a trajectory of coordinates serving as a base point when point cloud data of a facility using LiDAR is acquired by moving the LiDAR in the facility (see paragraphs 7-8, 32-35, 61, 65, 96 and Figures 1, 3, 15, 17 and 30 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system comprising a display device to display a window of a point cloud image including a route diagram of the vehicle. Note, it is clear that the “route diagram” of Togashi et al. is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “trajectory coordinates.” Togashi et al. further discloses the system comprising at least one processor as an integrated circuit implementing an image generation unit which inputs data for the point cloud image for display by the display device. Togashi et al. discloses the route diagram representing a route of the vehicle traveled with events located thereupon. Togashi et al. further discloses the vehicle equipment with a laser scanner (e.g. LiDAR) taking the measurements of the road and generating the point cloud image from the measurement data. Note, it is clear that since the moving vehicle comprises the actual laser scanning device, the vehicle location/position at each time of scan, can be considered functionally equivalent to its own “base point.”);
a point cloud data display unit configured to display the point cloud data acquired with user-designated coordinates at a user-designated position on the trajectory designated by a user in the trajectory display means as the base point (see paragraphs 61-65, 67-69, 102 and Figures 22, 31 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system comprising a point cloud image generation unit that generates point cloud image data according to measurement data obtained as the vehicle moves along a route as displayed by a route diagram. Note, it is clear that the vehicle in Togashi et al. is operated by a “user” or “driver” therefore, the route and associated laser-scanned-point-cloud-generated data is at least inherently “user-designed.”); and
a deterioration event display unit configured to cause the trajectory display unit to display, as a deterioration event position, deterioration event coordinates serving as the base point when the point cloud data including a deterioration event of the facility is acquired (see paragraphs 101-103, 118-122 and Figures 22, 33 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system monitoring the road surface and adding an event mark corresponding to a position where an event occurs among points in the point cloud image and displays such event marks on the image. Togashi et al. explicitly discloses an event position calculation unit for determining the specific events. Togashi et al. again discloses the system comprising a point cloud image generation unit that generates point cloud image data according to measurement data obtained as the vehicle moves along a route as displayed by a route diagram. Note, it is clear that since the moving vehicle inherently comprising its own location, the vehicle location/position at each time an event is determined/measured/calculated, can be considered functionally equivalent to its own “base point.”).
Although Togashi et al. does disclose monitoring/inspecting a road surface, Togashi et al. does not explicitly discloses monitoring/inspecting a “facility” explicitly. Ichinohe et al. discloses an apparatus, method and program for presenting a state of a surface of a building (see paragraph 5). Ichinohe et al. discloses the surface can be of an exterior or interior of a building, bridge, road surface or facility (see paragraph 10). Ichinohe et al. discloses analyzing the surface for failures or defects and particularly discloses utilizing instruments such as laser irradiators to perform the invention (see paragraphs 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the LiDAR-based monitor/inspection and display techniques of Togashi et al. in a facility, such as a building, as taught by Ichinohe et al. because the techniques of Togashi et al. are well suited to function for identifying multiple asset “surfaces” such as a building and the combination of the prior art forms a compatible and user-friendly device for inspection of facilities that are compatible across multiple asset types. Further motivation to perform such a combination of the prior art stems from the usage of a laser irradiator in Ichinohe et al. to perform such facility defect scanning, which therefore shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, was inclined to use such laser scanning techniques to scan building/facility surfaces.
In reference to claims 2 and 15, Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1 and 14 respectively. Although Togashi et al. does disclose computing coordinate data for location of the point cloud events and further converting such coordinates from 3D to 2D (see for example, paragraphs 65-67 and 69) and further explicitly discloses displaying latitude, longitude coordinates for the actual vehicle (see paragraph 33 and Figure 30), neither Togashi et al. or Ichinohe et al. explicitly disclose actually displaying such coordinates when displaying the event/defects identified. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include positional coordinate data along with the already displayed event mark on the route image displayed in at least Togashi et al.. Applicant has not disclosed that actually displaying or not displaying coordinates for such detected defects provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the monitoring and displaying techniques of the combination of Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. because the decision on what to display or what not to display is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or which best suits the invention at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the combination of Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claims 2 and 15.
In reference to claims 3 and 16, Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 2 and 15 respectively above. Togashi et al. further explicitly discloses storing a time of measurement for the point cloud monitored events (see at least paragraphs 83-84 and 87). Although Togashi et al. does disclose computing coordinate data for location of the point cloud events and further converting such coordinates from 3D to 2D (see for example, paragraphs 65-67 and 69) and further explicitly discloses displaying latitude, longitude coordinates for the actual vehicle (see paragraph 33 and Figure 30), neither Togashi et al. or Ichinohe et al. explicitly disclose actually displaying such time when displaying the event/defects identified. At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include timestamp-type information along with the already displayed event mark on the route image displayed in at least Togashi et al.. Applicant has not disclosed that actually displaying or not displaying timestamp data for such detected defects provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the monitoring and displaying techniques of the combination of Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. because the decision on what to display or what not to display is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or which best suits the invention at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify the combination of Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3. Note, the Examiner points to the claims specific language of “at least one…” which requires only a single teaching of the listed claim limitations.
In reference to claim 6, An information processing device comprising (see paragraphs 1, 8, 11, 32, 100, 118 and Figures 1, 2, 15, 20, 30, 33 wherein Togashi et al. discloses a road monitoring system using a road monitor device that obtains a three-dimensional measurement around the road and a vehicle as it travels on the road. Togashi et al. explicitly discloses measuring and calculating a road surface height with reference to the where a tire of the vehicle makes contacts thereto and creating event identifiers for particular references which don’t meet a threshold. Togashi et al. explicitly refers to such an event for example as a “road collapse” or in other words a pothole. Note, it is clear that such a measurement and event identifying process in Togashi et al. is functionally equivalent to an “inspection” process.):
a trajectory information holding unit configured to hold trajectory information including a trajectory of coordinates serving as a base point when point cloud data of a facility using LiDAR is acquired by moving the LiDAR in the facility, each coordinate of a plurality of base points constituting the trajectory, and each time at which the LiDAR has passed through each coordinate (see paragraphs 7-8, 32-35, 61, 65-67, 69, 83-84, 87, 95-97 and Figures 1, 3, 15, 17 and 30 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system comprising a display device to display a window of a point cloud image including a route diagram of the vehicle. Note, it is clear that the “route diagram” of Togashi et al. is functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “trajectory coordinates.” Togashi et al. further discloses the system comprising at least one processor as an integrated circuit implementing an image generation unit which inputs data for the point cloud image for display by the display device and a memory or storage device holding data and program code to implement the invention. Togashi et al. discloses the route diagram representing a route of the vehicle traveled with events located thereupon. Togashi et al. further discloses the vehicle equipment with a laser scanner (e.g. LiDAR) taking the measurements of the road and generating the point cloud image from the measurement data. Note, it is clear that since the moving vehicle comprises the actual laser scanning device, the vehicle location/position at each time of scan, can be considered functionally equivalent to its own “base point.” Togashi et al. further explicitly discloses storing a time of measurement for the point cloud monitored events. Togashi et al. does disclose computing coordinate data for location of the point cloud events and further converting such coordinates from 3D to 2D.);
a point cloud data information holding unit configured to hold point cloud data information including each point cloud data acquired with each coordinate as the base point and each time at which the LiDAR has passed through each coordinate serving as the base point when each point cloud data is acquired (see paragraphs 61-65, 67-69, 83-84, 87, 102 and Figures 22, 31 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system comprising a point cloud image generation unit that generates point cloud image data according to measurement data obtained as the vehicle moves along a route as displayed by a route diagram. Note, it is clear that the vehicle in Togashi et al. is operated by a “user” or “driver” therefore, the route and associated laser-scanned-point-cloud-generated data is at least inherently “user-designed.” Togashi et al. further explicitly discloses storing a time of measurement for the point cloud monitored events. Togashi et al. does disclose computing coordinate data for location of the point cloud events and further converting such coordinates from 3D to 2D.); and
a deterioration event coordinate extraction unit configured to extract deterioration event coordinates serving as the base point when the point cloud data including a deterioration event of the facility is acquired from the trajectory information and the point cloud data information (see paragraphs 101-103, 118-122 and Figures 22, 33 wherein Togashi et al. discloses the system monitoring the road surface and adding an event mark corresponding to a position where an event occurs among points in the point cloud image and displays such event marks on the image. Togashi et al. explicitly discloses an event position calculation unit for determining the specific events. Togashi et al. again discloses the system comprising a point cloud image generation unit that generates point cloud image data according to measurement data obtained as the vehicle moves along a route as displayed by a route diagram. Note, it is clear that since the moving vehicle inherently comprising its own location, the vehicle location/position at each time an event is determined/measured/calculated, can be considered functionally equivalent to its own “base point.”).
Although Togashi et al. does disclose monitoring/inspecting a road surface, Togashi et al. does not explicitly discloses monitoring/inspecting a “facility” explicitly. Ichinohe et al. discloses an apparatus, method and program for presenting a state of a surface of a building (see paragraph 5). Ichinohe et al. discloses the surface can be of an exterior or interior of a building, bridge, road surface or facility (see paragraph 10). Ichinohe et al. discloses analyzing the surface for failures or defects and particularly discloses utilizing instruments such as laser irradiators to perform the invention (see paragraphs 14-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to perform the LiDAR-based monitor/inspection and display techniques of Togashi et al. in a facility, such as a building, as taught by Ichinohe et al. because the techniques of Togashi et al. are well suited to function for identifying multiple asset “surfaces” such as a building and the combination of the prior art forms a compatible and user-friendly device for inspection of facilities that are compatible across multiple asset types. Further motivation to perform such a combination of the prior art stems from the usage of a laser irradiator in Ichinohe et al. to perform such facility defect scanning, which therefore shows that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention, was inclined to use such laser scanning techniques to scan building/facility surfaces.
In reference to claim 14, claim 14 is similar in scope to claim 1 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied to claim 1 above, claim 14 further recites, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a facility inspection display program for causing a computer to execute…” Togashi et al. discloses system implemented via hardware devices including a processor which executes a program stored in a storage memory/medium (see at least paragraphs 95-97).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 7, 8, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Togashi et al. (JP2017-083619), Ichinohe et al. (JP2018-017102) and further in view of Yoshida et al. (U.S. Patent 8,665,263).
In reference to claims 4, 7 and 17, Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 1, 6 and 14 respectively above. Togashi et al. further explicitly discloses storing a time of measurement for the point cloud monitored events (see at least paragraphs 83-84 and 87). Although Togashi et al. does disclose computing coordinate data for location of the point cloud events, converting such coordinates from 3D to 2D (see for example, paragraphs 65-67 and 69) and further explicitly discloses displaying latitude, longitude coordinates for the actual vehicle (See paragraph 33 and Figure 30), neither Togashi et al. or Ichinohe et al. explicitly disclose using a photographing unit to photograph the facility obtaining image data associated with coordinates and time data. Yoshida et al. discloses an aerial image generating apparatus, method and program generating a road orthoimage by using a colored laser point cloud (see column 1, lines 9-12). Yoshida et al. explicitly discloses a vehicle equipped with a camera for taking a photograph of a feature of the site of measurement of a laser scanner, also equipped on the vehicle, at the same time as the laser scanner measures a distance and orientation using a point cloud (see column 4, lines 16-36 and #200, 210, 220, 292 of Figure 1). Yoshida et al. further explicitly discloses displaying the camera image according to an image portion designated by a user on a display unit (see column 16, lines 64-67 and Figure 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the invention to implement the photographic image displaying techniques of Yoshida et al. with the LiDAR facility monitoring and displaying techniques Togashi et al. and Ichinohe et al. in order to add color information or another data dimension to such LiDAR scanned data thereby adding another visualization feature for increasing the ease in analyzing such data.
In reference to claims 5, 8 and 18, Togashi et al., Ichinohe et al. and Yoshida et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as applied to claims 4, 7 and 17 respectively above. Yoshida et al. further explicitly discloses a feature discriminating section that generates a point cloud orthoimage in which a standing feature portion is discriminated from other image portions and displayed (see column 16, lines 36-58).
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kumagi (U.S. Publication 2015/0355331)
Kumagi discloses a laser scanner system installed on a moveable object to acquire point cloud data along a moving line.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
9/29/26
Prosecution Insights