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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“detection data acquisition unit that acquires” and “update unit that updates” in claim 1;
“object specifying unit that specifies” in claim 4;
“detection data acquisition unit acquires” and “update unit updates” in claim 7;
“detection data acquisition unit acquires” in claim 8; and
“detection data acquisition unit acquires” and “update unit updates” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike, US PGPUB No. 20160321763 A1, hereinafter Shike, and further in view of Koga et al., US PGPUB No. 20190028676 A1, hereinafter Koga.
Regarding claim 1, Shike discloses a display system (Shike; a display system [¶ 0033-0034 and ¶ 0037-0038]; moreover, computer system [¶ 0068-0070 and ¶ 0078-0080]) comprising:
a three-dimensional data storage unit that stores three-dimensional data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a first range of a construction site in which a work machine operates (Shike; a 3D data storage unit that stores [¶ 0068 and ¶ 0078-0080] 3D data indicating a 3D shape in a 1st range of a construction site [¶ 0066] in which a work machine operates [¶ 0037-0038 and ¶ 0041]; wherein, construction machine(s) can acquire topography data of the construction site [¶ 0061]; and wherein, the topography data is 3D and/or corresponds to 3D imaging [¶ 0105 and ¶ 0108]);
a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range (Shike; a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a 3D shape in a 2nd range that is a part of the 1st range [¶ 0114-0116 and ¶ 0153-0154]; moreover, design topography data that is part of the topography data [¶ 0117-0120]);
an update unit that updates a partial range of the three-dimensional data on the basis of the detection data (Shike; an update unit that updates (i.e. keeps data current) a partial range of the 3D data on the basis of the detection data [¶ 0081 and ¶ 0093-0094]; moreover, current topography data [¶ 0061 and ¶ 0066]; wherein, detecting current topography of the construction site [¶ 0037]); and
a display control unit that causes a display apparatus to display an updated range and a non-updated range in different display forms in the three-dimensional data (Shike; a display control unit that causes a display apparatus to display [¶ 0054 and ¶ 0062] an updated range and a non-updated range (corresponding to before and after and/or actual and projected) [¶ 0118-0120] in different display forms in the 3D data [¶ 0121-0122], as illustrated within Figs. 13-14; additionally, progress of construction can be depicted [¶ 0143-0144], as illustrated within Figs. 20-21; wherein, 3D displaying construction performance data [¶ 0104-0106]).
Shike fails to disclose detection data in a second range that is a part of the first range.
However, Koga teaches a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range (Koga; a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a 3D shape in a 2nd range that is a part of the 1st range [¶ 0076-0077 and ¶ 0079-0080], as illustrated within Fig. 4; moreover, one or more work ranges associated with equipment [¶ 0090] and/or people [¶ 0091-0093]).
Shike and Koga are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike, to incorporate a detection data acquisition unit that acquires detection data indicating a three-dimensional shape in a second range that is a part of the first range (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit causes the updated range and the non-updated range to be displayed in different colors (Shike; the display control unit causes the updated range and the non-updated range (corresponding to before and after and/or actual and projected) [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to be displayed in different colors [¶ 0121-0122], as illustrated within Figs. 13-14; additionally, progress of construction can be depicted [¶ 0143-0144], as illustrated within Figs. 20-21; wherein, 3D displaying construction performance data [¶ 0104-0106]).
Regarding claim 3, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the display control unit causes the updated range to be displayed in a highlighted manner (Shike; the display control unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] causes the updated range to be displayed in a highlighted manner [¶ 0121]).
Regarding claim 4, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the detection data includes image data indicating an image of the construction site (Shike; the detection data includes image data indicating an image of the construction site [¶ 0114-0116]; moreover, design topography data that is part of the topography data [¶ 0117-0120] that is outputted [¶ 0153-0154]), the display system comprises an object specifying unit that specifies an object in the image (Shike; the display system [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] comprises an object specifying unit [¶ 0078 and ¶ 0080-0083] that specifies an object (i.e. topology, soil cut) in the image [¶ 0119 and ¶ 0121]; additionally, indication of a working capability of a work machine (or working amount of a work machine) [¶ 0085]), and the display control unit causes the specified object to be displayed in a highlighted manner (Shike; the display control unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] causes the specified object (i.e. topology, soil cut) to be displayed in a highlighted manner [¶ 0119 and ¶ 0121]).
Regarding claim 6, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine (Koga; the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine [¶ 0076-0077 and ¶ 0081-0083], as illustrated within Fig. 4; moreover, one or more work ranges [¶ 0090-0093], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate the object includes at least one of a person and the work machine (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 8, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 1, wherein the detection data acquisition unit acquires the detection data from a three-dimensional sensor that detects the construction site, and the three-dimensional sensor is disposed on a moving body (Shike; the detection data acquisition unit acquires the detection data from a 3D sensor that detects the construction site and the 3D sensor is disposed on a moving body (i.e. drone) [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0066]; wherein, the topography data is detected by the camera provided on a drone [¶ 0081]).
Regarding claim 9, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 8, wherein the moving body includes at least one of a flight vehicle and the work machine (Shike; the moving body [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] includes at least one of a flight vehicle (i.e. drone) and the work machine [¶ 0037 and ¶ 0066]).
Regarding claim 10, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 8, wherein the detection data acquisition unit acquires the detection data from a three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the detection data acquisition unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] acquires the detection data [¶ 0066] from a 3D sensor [¶ 0080-0081 and ¶ 0182]; wherein, a done utilizes a camera/sensor [¶ 0037] to acquire current topography data [¶ 0105]), the update unit updates the three-dimensional data on the basis of the detection data of the three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the update unit updates the 3D data [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] on the basis of the detection data of the 3D sensors [¶ 0037-0039 and ¶ 0105]; wherein, current topography data from camera corresponds to updated 3D data [¶ 0066]), and the display control unit causes the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for the three-dimensional sensor (Shike; the display control unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] causes the updated range to be displayed in different display forms the plurality of 3D sensor [¶ 0121-0122]).
Koga further teaches detection data from each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensors (Koga; detection data from each of a plurality of 3D sensors [¶ 0021-0022 and ¶ 0041-0042]; wherein, aircrafts/drones capture images using cameras [¶ 0076, ¶ 0080, and ¶ 0082]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate detection data from each of a plurality of three-dimensional sensors (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 11. Although, claim 11 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 11 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claim 2, due to the similarities claim 12 and claim 2 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 2 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 3, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 3 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 3 regarding the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 14 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 6, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 6 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 6 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 8, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 8 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 8 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 9, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 9 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 9 regarding the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 10, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 10 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 10 regarding the rejection of claim 20.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike in with of Koga as applied to claim(s) 4 and 14 above, and further in view of Nishi, US PGPUB No. 20220018096 A1, hereinafter Nishi.
Regarding claim 5, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according to claim 4, wherein the display control unit causes a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (Shike; the display control unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] causes an implicit frame surrounding the object to be displayed [¶ 0145]; wherein, a frame is implicit given the visualization of a construction machine, as illustrated within Fig. 21).
Koga further teaches a frame surrounding the object (Koga; a frame (corresponding to one or more regions of interest) surrounding the machinery is monitored [¶ 0090-0091 and ¶ 0094-0095], as illustrated within Fig. 6; wherein, the object corresponds to an excavator and/or a person [id.]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate a frame surrounding the object (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Shike as modified by Koga fails to explicitly disclose a frame to be displayed.
However, Nishi teaches a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (Nishi; a frame surrounding the object to be displayed [¶ 0076 and ¶ 0080], as illustrated within Fig. 6).
Shike in view of Koga and Nishi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate a frame surrounding the object to be displayed (as taught by Nishi), in order to provide improved safety within environment involving construction machine (Nishi; [¶ 0004-0007]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 15 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 15 regarding the rejection of claim 5.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shike in with of Koga as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ladha et al., US PGPUB No. 20180012125 A1, hereinafter Ladha.
Regarding claim 7, Shike in with of Koga further discloses the display system according claim 1, wherein the detection data acquisition unit acquires the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (Shike; the detection data acquisition unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] acquires the detection data [¶ 0061, ¶ 0066, and ¶ 0080] at each of an implicit plurality of time points (give image surveying) [¶ 0155-0156]; moreover, rapidly surveyed topography [id.]; additionally, construction period data associated with a progress schedule [¶ 0133 and ¶ 0135], as depicted within Figs. 17 and 18), the update unit updates the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points (Shike; the update unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] updates the 3D data at each of the implicit plurality of time points (given the topographical data is made current based on acquired image data) [¶ 0037-0039 and ¶ 0105]; wherein, current topography data corresponds to updated 3D data [¶ 0061 and ¶ 0066]), and the display control unit causes the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (Shike; the display control unit [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] causes the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the implicit plurality of time points (given the visualized topographical data is made current using the acquired image data) [¶ 0121-0122], as illustrated within Fig. 14).
Koga further teaches acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (Koga; acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points (corresponding to captured images at predetermined time intervals) [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0109]; wherein, differences in topographical data can be realized using data from different time periods; additionally, image data can be stored in chronological order [¶ 0071 and ¶ 0112]), updating the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points (Koga; updating the 3D data at each of the plurality of time points (corresponds to generating the 3D topographical data based on captured images) [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0066-0069]), and causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (Koga; causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points [¶ 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Koga, to incorporate acquiring the detection data at each of a plurality of time points, updating the three-dimensional data at each of the plurality of time points, and causing the updated range to be displayed in different display forms for each of the plurality of time points (as taught by Koga), in order to provide an improved construction machine and construction site management that make work environment more secure, safe, and efficient (Koga; [Abstract and ¶ 0005-0006]).
Shike as modified by Koga fail to explicitly disclose detection data correlating to a plurality.
However, Ladha teaches a plurality of time points (Ladha; a plurality of time points corresponding to sensor data can be obtained any number of times and at any frequency [¶ 0054]).
Shike in view of Koga and Nishi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with capturing and providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Shike as modified by Ladha, to incorporate a plurality of time points (as taught by Ladha), in order to provide improved efficiency within construction environments wherein installation/assembly errors are timely monitored (Ladha; [¶ 0002 and ¶ 0025]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 7, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 7 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 17 regarding the rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5: 00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2616
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611