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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on June 2, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 15 and cancellation of claims 2, 3, 11, and 12 have been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment, the claims are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 2, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejections, have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments rely on newly added and/or amended claim limitations. The examiner has revised the rejections to match the new claim limitations.
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 2, 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Representative submits that the prior art (Onishi, Neumann, and Ettinger) does not teach the vector connecting the optical center and the person on the perspective projection surface and the terrain.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art teaches that a vector is connecting the optical center of the camera with the person on the perspective projection surface and the terrain (Neumann ¶¶0107: “FIG. 16 is a perspective view illustrating a process of using a segmented region of video imagery … 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”; Neumann Fig. 16 & ¶¶0109: “A point 1610 is the 3D optical center of a camera generating an image being processed. A bounding shape 1630 can be a bounding box in an image plane 1620 of the tracked moving object. A point 1640 can be the mid-point of the bottom edge of the bounding box”) (emphasis added, Neumann Fig. 16 duplicated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
24
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
720
24
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of this reasonable interpretation of the claims and the prior art, the examiner respectfully submits that the rejections set forth below are proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 18, 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 claim 1, Onishi teaches a construction management system comprising a processor, the processor being configured to:
acquire 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);
store 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);
specify 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”);
specify 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);
specify 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); and
acquire image data from a camera that images the construction site (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”).
However, Onishi does not appear to explicitly teach that a perspective projection surface is defined between an optical center of the camera and the person and the processor is further configured to specify 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 that 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 processor is further configured to specify 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 ¶¶0107: “FIG. 16 is a perspective view illustrating a process of using a segmented region of video imagery … 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”; Neumann ¶¶0109: “A point 1610 is the 3D optical center of a camera generating an image being processed. A bounding shape 1630 can be a bounding box in an image plane 1620 of the tracked moving object. A point 1640 can be the mid-point of the bottom edge of the bounding box”; 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 9 and 18, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, wherein the processor is configured to cause 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).
Regarding claim 10, Onishi, in view of Neumann, 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 4 and 13, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, 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 1 and 10, 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 Neumann et al. (US 2004/0105573 A1), and further in view of Ettinger et al. (US 11,216,663 B1), hereinafter referred to as Onishi, Neumann, and Ettinger, respectively.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Onishi, in view of Neumann, teaches the construction management system and method according to claims 1 and 10, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the processor is configured to specify 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 processor is configured to specify 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, in view of Neumann, 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, in view of Neumann) 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights