CTNF 18/755,217 CTNF 81208 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,061,152 B2 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations claimed in claims 1-14 of the instant application are found in claims 1-15 of the Patent and the claims of the present application are broader than the claim of the Patent . They correspond as follows: 18/755,217 12,061,152 B2 1 1,3, 4 2 - 3 3 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 1,3, 4 14 1,3, 4 The difference between the present application and the Patent is that the present application claimed damage in captured image while the Patent claimed wherein in a case in which the damage is a plurality of fissures in the captured image ……... belonging to a group or a specific type of damage. The Patent claimed at least type of damage that would anticipate or obvious to the claims of the present application. Both are repair diagram generation device/method and non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a repair diagram generation process. The patent claim disclosure teaches that the damage defect is such as a fissure is detected based on the captured image and repair. For the purposes of clarity, a processor/computer which is a programmable machine that performs high-speed processing of numbers, as well as of text, graphics, symbols, and sound. Processor/Computers generally contain a central processing unit that interprets and executes instructions; input devices, such as a keyboard and a mouse, through which data and commands enter the computer; memory that enables the computer to store programs and data; and output devices, such as printers and display screens/monitor), that show the results after the computer/processor has processed data . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horita (2020/0349695 A1, previously cited reference) Regarding claims 1, 13 and 14, Horita discloses a repair /correction diagram generation device/method (claim 13) and non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a repair diagram generation process (claim 14) is included in an image processing apparatus (figs. 2-5, and 29-31) comprising: a camera a digital camera 100 acquires images with an image capturing unit 110 that acquires a captured image of a structure [pars. 0074 and 0076] ; and a processor an image processing apparatus main body 200 configured to: a damage detection unit 210B detect damage from the captured image by image processing image processing apparatus main body 200 and specify a degree of the damage; an image determination unit 210C and a construction information acquisition unit 210E specify a repair /correction/make revision method of the damage based on the damage and the degree of the damage; and detection result revising unit 210F generate a repair /correction/make revision diagram showing /displaying a repair region and the repair method for repairing the damage based on the damage and the repair method [pars. 0078-81, 0101-102] ; wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to calculate a size of the repair region based on the repair diagram, and generate a repair quantity table including the size of the repair region [pars. 0091, 0105, 0107, 0117], and monitor 232 display the repair diagram result on a monitor the monitor 232 [pars. 0078-79, 0086, 0094-95] , wherein, in a case where the damage detect damage is a fissure (in this case fissure is a form of crack opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in structure) and/or split or crack that form a long, narrow opening [pars. 0003, 0050, 0064-65 and 0091-92], as can be seen depicted drawing (figs. 13-14) , the repair /correction/make revision region is a linear region which is longer and wider than the damage, and in a case where the damage detect damage is other than the fissure, as can be seen depicted drawing (figs. 13-14) , the repair region is a rectangular region which includes the damage [pars. 0100, 0105-107, 0115-118] , and Horita further teaches that construction information acquisition unit 210E .. acquire information about the size of the panel, the size per one pixel, etc. (the construction information acquisition unit 210E … use the construction information 220D and the photographing conditions 220B), and the damage detection unit 210B … convert the result of visual measurement to an actual size to calculate the length, width, etc. of the crack [pars. 0117-118]and Horita also teaches that, the damage detection unit 210B sets thresholds for the feature values (for example, the length and width of a crack, the space between cracks, the density of cracks, etc.) for each type of damage and adds up weighting coefficients calculated in accordance with the relationships between the detection results and the thresholds (whether a detection result is within the range of a threshold [par. 0115], that include(s) wherein the size of the repair region is decided based (according to)/ on a kind of the damage (i.e. a continuous crack or a thick crack or a thin crack, a short crack, and a discontinuous crack (cracks C11, C12, and C13) light) [pars. 0117-118] and the degree of the damage (i.e. specifies the start point and the end point of each crack) [par. 0105] . Additionally, if the Applicant argues that Horita fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural changes of wherein, in a case where the damage is a fissure, the repair region is a linear region which is longer and wider than the damage, and in a case where the damage is other than the fissure, the repair region is a rectangular region which includes the damage, then the constructional changes of damage type as being fissure, is/are considered obvious design variation of crack, since fissure is a form or a type of crack, then it is obvious in view of Horita teaching and suggestion of repairing/correcting/making revision where necessary a target structure defect damage such as crack as can be seen depicted drawing (figs. 13-14) that would include fissure type crack without discrimination [pars. 0019, 0021, 0110, 0115-116] (Horita, claims 7 and 9). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognized that fissure is a form or a type of crack and modify Horita in the manner set forth in applicant's claim(s) in order to accurately determine a structure repair method selection system that includes a repair evaluation unit, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, the system would still accurately captured image of a target structure to be repaired, and detects damage from the captured image since the damage is a form or a type of crack. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognized that fissure is a form or a type of crack, and modify Horita in the manner set forth in applicant's claim(s) in order to accurately determine a structure repair method selection system that includes a repair evaluation unit, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, the system would still accurately captured image of a target structure to be repaired, and detects damage from the captured image since the damage is a form or a type of crack, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954). For the purpose of clarity, the method claim 13 is taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the apparatus/device claim 1 as rejected above as being unpatentable over Horita. Also, the structure recited in claim 14 is symmetrical to the structure recited in claims 1 and 13, as such, claim 14 is rejected above as being unpatentable over Horita. Determination is based on Features (i.e. size dimension, the length and width of a crack) of detection result [par. 0116] is based (according to)/ on kind of damage size of the implicitly repair region. A measurement of the size of something in a particular direction is a measure of dimension, such as the length, width, height, or diameter. As to claims 3-9, Horita further discloses a structure that is use in a method/system repair /correction diagram generation device an image processing apparatus (figs. 2-5, and 29-31) that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to calculate a repair cost /value of the damage based on the size of the repair region and the repair method [pars. 0077-84] (claim 3); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to display with a display unit 230 at least one of the repair /correction diagram, the repair quantity table, or the repair cost as a first detection result on a monitor a monitor 232 (claim 4); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to generate a damage diagram showing the damage based on the damage (figs. 8-9B, 27A-28) (claim 5); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to generate a damage quantity table including the degree of the damage [pars. 0012, 0100, 0115] (claim 6); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to display at least one of the damage diagram or the damage quantity table on the monitor the monitor 232 as a second detection result [pars. 0078-84, 0086] (claim 7); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to switch and display the first detection result and the second detection result on the monitor the monitor 232 (claim 8); and wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to display the first detection result and the second detection result side by side on the monitor the monitor 232 at the same time (claim 9). As to claims 10- 12, Horita further discloses a structure that is use in a method/system repair /correction diagram generation device an image processing apparatus (figs. 2-5, and 29-31) that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to receive an editing instruction for the first detection result [pars. 0010, 0078-0086, 0101, 0104] (claim 10); wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to receive an editing instruction for the second detection result (claim 11); and wherein the camera image capturing unit 110 acquires a plurality of captured images of the structure, and wherein the processor image processing apparatus main body 200 is configured to perform panorama composition of the plurality of the captured images acquired by the camera [pars. 0010, 0076, 0078-0086, 0101, 0104] (claim 12) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nonaka et al. (2018/0189423 A1, previously cited reference) . Regarding claims 1, 13 and 14, Nonaka discloses a repair diagram generation device/method (claim 13) and non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a repair diagram generation process (claim 14) is repair plan drafting support system (figs. 1-4, 6 and 8) (see abstract) [pars. 0002 and 0005] comprising: a camera an imaging unit 106 that acquires a captured image of a structure [pars. 0072, 0076] ; and a processor a control unit 12 includes a central processing unit (CPU) configured to: control the imaging unit 106 to detect damage from the captured image by image processing control unit 12 includes a central processing unit (CPU) and specify a degree of the damage; determination unit 24 specify a repair method of the damage based on the damage and the degree of the damage; and repair plan generation unit 20 generate a repair diagram showing by a display unit 26 a repair region and the repair method for repairing the damage based on the damage and the repair method [pars. 0044, 0052-54, 0067] ; wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to calculate a size of the repair region based on the repair diagram, and generate a repair quantity table including the size of the repair region [pars. 0052], and a display unit 26 display the repair diagram or the repair quantity table as a first detection result on a monitor [pars. 0034, 0044-46, 0067-68, 0074 and 0076], as can be seen in depicted drawing (figs.1, 3-4, 8) , wherein, in a case where the damage is a fissure (in this case fissure is a form of crack opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in structure) and/or split or crack that form a long, narrow opening [pars. 0052, 0092] , intended the repair region is a linear region which is longer and wider than the damage, and in a case where the damage is other than the fissure (in this case fissure is a form of crack opening or line of breakage made by cracking or splitting, especially in structure) and/or split or crack that form a long, narrow opening [pars. 0052, 0092] , intended the repair region is a rectangular region which includes the damage, and Nonaka teaches of the inspection result information is information indicating result of the inspection ………, whether or not the inspection portion is damaged, the type of damage, the degree of damage (the size (length and width) of a crack, the orientation of the crack, a change in crack with time, obviously includes wherein the size of the repair region is decided based (according to) on a kind of the damage and the degree of the damage [par. 0052] . Furthermore, if the Applicant argues that Nonaka fail to explicitly specify the constructional/structural changes of wherein, in a case where the damage is a fissure, the repair region is a linear region which is longer and wider than the damage, and in a case where the damage is other than the fissure, the repair region is a rectangular region which includes the damage, then the constructional changes of damage type as being fissure, is/are considered obvious design variation of crack, since fissure is a form or a type of crack, then it is obvious in view of Nonaka teaching and suggestion of repairing/correcting/making revision where necessary a target structure defect damage such as crack [pars. 0052, 0092] [pars. 0044, 0052-54, 0067] that would include fissure type crack without discrimination . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognized that fissure is a form or a type of crack and modify Nonaka in the manner set forth in applicant's claim(s) in order to accurately determine a structure repair method selection system that includes a repair evaluation unit, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, the system would still accurately captured image of a target structure to be repaired, and detects damage from the captured image since the damage is a form or a type of crack. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to reasonably recognized that fissure is a form or a type of crack, and modify Nonaka in the manner set forth in applicant's claim(s) in order to accurately determine a structure repair method selection system that includes a repair evaluation unit, since the propose modification of the prior art would not change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, the system would still accurately captured image of a target structure to be repaired, and detects damage from the captured image since the damage is a form or a type of crack, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CC1954). For the purpose of clarity, the method claim 13 is taught/suggested by the functions shown/stated/set forth with regards to the apparatus/device claim 1 as rejected above as being unpatentable over Nonaka. Also, the structure recited in claim 14 is symmetrical to the structure recited in claims 1 and 13, as such, claim 14 is rejected above as being unpatentable over Nonaka. Additionally, determination is based on features (i.e. size dimension, the length and width of a crack) of detection result is based on kind of damage size of the implicitly repair region. A measurement of the size of something in a particular direction is a measure of dimension, such as the length, width, height, or diameter. As to claims 3-9, Nonaka further discloses a structure that is use in a method/system repair diagram generation device repair plan drafting support system (figs. 1-4, 6 and 8) that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to calculate a repair cost of the damage based on the size of the repair region and the repair method [pars. 0068] (claim 3); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to display with a display unit 26 at least one of the repair diagram, the repair quantity table, or the repair cost as a first detection result on a monitor [pars. 0044-46] (claim 4); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to generate a damage diagram showing the damage based on the damage [pars. 0052, 0092] (claim 5); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to generate a damage quantity table including the degree of the damage [pars. 0052, 0092] (claim 6); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to display at least one of the damage diagram or the damage quantity table on the monitor (for example, LCD) as a second detection result [pars. 0044-46, 0074] (claim 7); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to switch and display the first detection result and the second detection result on the monitor [pars. 0044-46] (claim 8); and wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to display the first detection result and the second detection result side by side on the monitor at the same time [pars. 0044-46] (claim 9). As to claims 10-12, Nonaka further discloses a structure that is use in a method/system repair diagram generation device is repair plan drafting support system (figs. 1-4, 6 and 8) (see abstract) [pars. 0002 and 0005] that is implementing limitations such as, wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to receive an editing instruction for the first detection result [pars. 0002, 0005, 0021, 0082, 0095] (claim 10); wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to receive an editing instruction for the second detection result [pars. 0002, 0005, 0021, 0082, 0095] (claim 11); and wherein the camera image unit 106 acquires a plurality of captured images of the structure, and wherein the processor control unit 12 that includes a central processing unit (CPU) is configured to perform panorama composition of the plurality of the captured images acquired by the camera [pars. 0002, 0005, 0021, 0082, 0095] (claim 12) . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see pages 6-7, filed on 05/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments: a) Applicant argues in particular that Applicant contends that neither Horita nor Nakano discloses or suggests that the size of repair region is decided based on a kind of the damage and the degree of the damage , as recited in the amended claims. Examiner's response: With respect to argument (a), it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because the feature "size" as recited in independent claims the “size” is implicitly and obviously included in the captured image (Horita, figs, 13-14, 17-18, 20A-21B, 27A-27E) and the size of the detected damage(s) of the region is calculated for the repairing defect based on the area/region of the defect/crack detected that is within the captured image as a dimension of defect/crack. Nonaka clearly teaches of the result information [par. 0052] is based on wherein the size of the repair region is decided based (according to)/on a kind of the damage and the degree of the damage. In addition, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is not persuasive because it well settled that the teachings or suggestions of the prior art that have been used as evidence within a rejection of the claimed invention in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103, as set forth by the Court, are to be evaluated and determined not just from one or more specifically identified quotes to individual sections of the text of the prior art document but are in fact to be evaluated and determined from all that the prior art document teaches or suggests, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 17 (CCPA, 1977), with some reliance on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made in order to provide an enabling disclosure, In re BODE et al, 193 USPQ 12 at 16 (CCPA, 1977). In this case, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that this argument is persuasive because a measurement of the size of something in a particular direction is a measure of dimension, such as the length, width, height, or diameter considering the BRI consistent with the instant specification. Additional Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references listed in the attached form PTO-892 teach of other prior art repair diagram generation device/method and non-transitory computer readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a repair diagram generation process . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isiaka Akanbi whose telephone number is (571) 272-8658. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur R. Chowdhury can be reached on (571) 272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /ISIAKA O AKANBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 2 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 3 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 4 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 5 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 6 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 7 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 8 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 9 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 10 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 11 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 12 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 13 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 14 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 15 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 16 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 17 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 18 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 19 Art Unit: 2877 Application/Control Number: 18/755,217 Page 20 Art Unit: 2877
Prosecution Insights