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 .
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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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: “an image data acquisition unit that acquires,” “a terrain data storage unit that stores,” “a person specifying unit that specifies,” “a two-dimensional position specifying unit that specifies,” “a three-dimensional position specifying unit that specifies,” and “a display control unit that causes” in claims 1-9.
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 § 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)(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, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshiyuki Onishi (US 2020/0053321 A1), hereinafter referred to as Onishi.
Regarding claim 1, Onishi teaches a construction management system comprising:
an image data acquisition unit that acquires image data indicating an image of a construction site where a work machine operates (Onishi ¶¶0021: “The stereo camera 11 is a stereo camera provided to be able to capture images the entire construction site F”; Onishi Fig. 1; Onishi Fig. 5: objects including persons and machines are detected);
a terrain data storage unit that stores terrain data indicating a three-dimensional shape of a terrain of the construction site (Onishi Fig. 1: the entire worksite F is captured, including the terrain. Onishi Fig. 2: Recording medium 104);
a person specifying unit that specifies a person in the image (Onishi Fig. 5 & ¶¶0059: “The type/state specifying unit 1002 extracts regions G2 and G3 matching feature patterns of the workers 12d from the image data I1”);
a two-dimensional position specifying unit that specifies a two-dimensional position of the person in the image (Onishi ¶¶0038: “the position specifying unit 1003 performs a stereo matching process on stereo images generated through capturing images in the stereo camera 11, so as to specify a three-dimensional position (X, Y, Z) of the work medium 12 included in the stereo images” – Stereo images are 2D); and
a three-dimensional position specifying unit that specifies a three-dimensional position of the person in the construction site based on the two-dimensional position and the terrain data (Onishi ¶¶0038 discussed above, the 3D position is determined using the stereo matching process).
Regarding claim 10, Onishi teaches a construction management method comprising the steps described in claim 1 (Onishi Title: “operation information transmission method …”; Onishi ¶¶0001: “The present invention relates to an operation information transmission device, a construction management system, an operation information transmission method, and a program”). Therefore, claim 10 is rejected using the same rationale as applied to claim 1 discussed above.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Onishi teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the image data acquisition unit acquires image data from a camera that images the construction site, and the three-dimensional position specifying unit specifies the three-dimensional position based on a position of the camera, the two-dimensional position, and the terrain data (Onishi Fig. 1 & ¶¶0038 discussed above; Onishi ¶¶0064: “the position specifying unit 1003 (CPU 100) specifies a position of each work medium 12 specified in steps S01 to S03 on the basis of the moving image data (step S04). Here, the moving image data (the image data I1, I2, . . . (FIG. 5)) acquired through capturing images in the stereo camera 11 is stereo images which are simultaneously captured and generated by two cameras. The position specifying unit 1003 performs each of the stereo images so as to specify a three-dimensional position (X, Y, Z) of each extracted work medium 12”).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Onishi teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, comprising a display control unit that causes a display device to display the three-dimensional position (Onishi ¶¶0071: “the user can check operation information of each work medium 12 in the desired construction site F on a display panel of each output device 3 at any time”; Onishi Figs. 5-6).
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.
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) 3-7 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiyuki Onishi (US 2020/0053321 A1), in view of Neumann et al. (US 2004/0105573 A1), hereinafter referred to as Onishi and Neumann, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Onishi teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 2 and 11, but does not appear to explicitly teach a perspective projection surface is defined between an optical center of the camera and the person and the three-dimensional position specifying unit specifies the three-dimensional position based on an intersection between a vector connecting the optical center and the person on the perspective projection surface and the terrain.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches:
a perspective projection surface is defined between an optical center of the camera and the person (Neumann ¶¶0063: “An image sensor 120 can be a mobile sensor platform on an aerial vehicle, a ground vehicle or a person that includes a video camera obtaining a real-time video stream”; Neumann ¶¶0079: “The system 100 can use a model of perspective image projection, a strategy to handle the problem of visibility and occlusion detection, and an accurate sensor model including camera parameters, projection geometry, and pose information”), and
the three-dimensional position specifying unit specifies the three-dimensional position based on an intersection between a vector connecting the optical center and the person on the perspective projection surface and the terrain (Neumann Fig. 6-10 & 16; Neumann ¶¶0111: “With the assumption that moving objects rest on the ground, point 1670 can be used to define the 3D position of the model surface 1660. The orientation of the model surface 1660 is denoted by a vector 1680, which can be set in the same vertical plane as the vector 1650 and set perpendicular to a scene model up-vector (i.e., the vector 1680 lies in the ground plane 1600). Two corners of the bounding box 1630 can then be projected onto the model plane to determine the size of the model surface 1660”).
Onishi and Neumann are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction management system, method, and program (as taught by Onishi) to use a perspective projection (as taught by Neumann) because the combination solves the problem of visibility and occlusion (Neumann ¶¶0079).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 3 and 12, wherein the vector is set to pass a region of the person on the perspective projection surface (Neumann Fig. 16 & ¶¶0111discussed above; further see Neumann ¶¶0107: “FIG. 16 illustrates the case of a ground-level camera and a tracked object (e.g., a person or vehicle) that rests on the ground 1600 in a three dimensional model”).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 4 and 13, wherein the region of the person is feet of the person (Neumann Fig. 16 & ¶¶0107, ¶¶0111discussed above).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Onishi teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 2 and 11, wherein the captured images are moving images (Onishi ¶¶0064 discussed above).
However, Onishi does not appear to explicitly teach that the camera is disposed in a moving body.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Neumann teaches that the camera is disposed in a moving body (Neumann ¶¶0063 discussed above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction management system, method, and program (as taught by Onishi) to use UAVs (as taught by Neumann) because the combination presents the observer with a single coherent and evolving view of the complete scene (Neumann ¶¶0063).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 6 and 15, wherein the moving body includes at least one of a flight vehicle and the work machine (Neumann ¶¶0063 discussed above).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshiyuki Onishi (US 2020/0053321 A1), in view of Ettinger et al. (US 11,216,663 B1), hereinafter referred to as Onishi and Ettinger, respectively.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Onishi teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the person specifying unit specifies the person based on a learning model to which a feature value of an object is input and from which the person is output.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Ettinger teaches that the person specifying unit specifies the person based on a learning model to which a feature value of an object is input and from which the person is output (Ettinger Abstract: “Information derivable from the methodologies herein can be used for machine learning libraries and digital twin processes”; Ettinger col. 52 line 39-col. 53 line 15: “Machine learning-based object identification, segmentation, and/or labeling algorithms can be used to identify the 2D/3D boundaries, geometry, type and health of objects, components, and scene or locations of interest so that it can be replaced by an object representing a physical asset or elements thereof with corresponding semantic data from an existing 3D model library of a subject object, feature, scene, or location of interest … Deep Convolutional Neural Networks … A directed graph can be used to build the neural networks. Each unit can be represented by a node labeled according to its output and the units are interconnected by directed edges … The iterative process can be attributed to the fact that state-of-the-art deep learning architectures … As a result, the output can progress from an abstract definition of the objects, components, or features of interest to an output that provides a definition that more closely conforms to the asset(s) in real-life”).
Onishi and Ettinger are considered to be analogous art because they are directed to image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction management system, method, and program (as taught by Onishi) to use machine learning (as taught by Ettinger) because the combination can use existing databases and provides output that closely conforms to the real-life assets through an iterative process (Ettinger col. 52 line 39-col. 53 line 15).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOO J SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9753. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10-6.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/Soo Shin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
571-272-9753
soo.shin@uspto.gov