In DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1- This office action is a response to an application filed on 10/24/2024, in which claims 1-14 are currently pending. The Application claims foreign priority to 10-2023-0145176, filed 10/27/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
2- The submitted information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is(are) in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is(are) being considered by the examiner.
Specification
3- The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which application may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
4- The drawings were received on 10/24/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
imaging unit, quantification module in claims 1, 8,
Distance calculation unit in claim 4,
Vector generation unit, virtual coordinate generation unit, distance estimation unit, an angle estimation unit in claims 5, 10,
Scale estimation unit, focal length estimation unit, quantification unit in claims 6, 13,
a labeling processing unit, an annotation processing unit, format conversion unit in claims 7, 14.
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 § 112
7- 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.
8- Claims 5, 10, 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claims 5/10, which reads “… a virtual coordinate generation unit generating coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiation points and virtual coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiated to the plane of the structure through the normal vector with respect to the plane of the structure generated by the vector generation unit… ”, or equivalent in claim 10, the underlined clauses appear to present indefiniteness issues, as it is not clear to the Examiner what do the ”virtual coordinates” represent, how clearly are they calculated, and how they relate to or differ from the “coordinates” (in bold) that also generated by the same unit.
For examination purposes, all the options will be considered.
As to claim 12, which reads “…positioning a target in front of a slide unit provided so that the mounting target is movable back and forth along a straight track… and acquiring the 3-point or more laser irradiation points for each of a plurality of points;”, the underlined clauses appear to present antecedence issues making the claim indefinite as it is not clear as what target the claim pertains to. The clauses in bold also appear to present indefiniteness issues as it is not clear how “plurality of points” pertain to the “laser irradiation points”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
9- 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.
10- Claims 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Troy et al. (PGPUB No. 2015/0116481)
As to claims 1/8, Troy teaches a structure exterior inspection system, and its method of use, (Abstract and Figs. 1-10; system 112) comprising: an image capturing unit including an imaging unit (¶ 4-6, 21-22; camera 214) that captures an exterior image of a structure (102) and a laser rangefinder (laser ranging device 212) that irradiates a 3-point or more laser to a surface of the structure within a field of view of the imaging unit (¶ 29-23 for ex.; laser points 412 or 712 or 912); an angle estimation module estimating an angle of the imaging unit with respect to a plane of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit (¶ 4-6, 21-2, 25 for ex.); a quantification module quantifying a damaged area of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit; and a damage reading module reading a damage status of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit (¶ 5, 7-9 and ¶ 4-6, 20, 23-24, 27-29, 34-38; positioning. assessing and mapping damage 104, i.e. quantifying it and determining its status).
Moreover, Troy discloses:
(claims 2-3, 9) wherein the laser rangefinder is arranged to maintain a uniform relative position with respect to the imaging unit; wherein the laser rangefinder is formed in a form that it is mounted on the imaging unit (212/214 in 112 in Figs. 1-2, 4-5, and the points 412/712/912 are chosen at different distances from 112).
(claim 4) wherein the laser rangefinder includes: a body (216) including a connecting part arranged to be mounted on the imaging unit (214); 3 or more laser oscillation units mounted on the body and irradiating laser (Fig. 2; with three or more laser points generated by the laser system 212 mounted on the body); and a distance calculation unit calculating a distance from a laser irradiation point of the laser oscillation unit to the structure (Fig. 8, ¶ 4-6, 16, 22, 25 for ex.)
(claims 7/14) wherein the damage reading module includes: a labeling processing unit labeling a type of damage of the structure appearing in the image; an annotation processing unit extracting and displaying the damaged area of the structure appearing in the image; and a format conversion unit converting the shape of the damaged area displayed by the annotation processing unit into another format available on preset software (¶ 4, 20, 34 ; CAD models are built, i.e. labeling/annotations with damage image format, size, dimension conversions are considered).
(claim 11) The structure exterior inspection method of claim 8, further comprising: prior to the step (c), -ex- measuring an error degree for the 3-point or more laser irradiated by the laser rangefinder, wherein the step (c) is performed by reflecting the error degree measured in the step -ex- (¶ 25-27; calibration of the measurements of the multiple points is considered, i.e. measuring errors and correcting them).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11- 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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
12- Claims 5-6, 10, 13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy.
As to claims 5/10, Troy teaches the structure exterior inspection system of claim 1 and its method of use of claim 8, comprising a distance estimation unit deriving an estimated distance from the 3-point or more laser irradiation points to the structure; and an angle estimation unit estimating an angle of the imaging unit with respect to the structure (see rejection of claims 1/8).
Troy does not teach expressly wherein the angle estimation module includes: a vector generation unit generating a normal vector with respect to the plane of the structure positioned in an optical axis direction of the imaging unit; a virtual coordinate generation unit generating coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiation points and virtual coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiated to the plane of the structure through the normal vector with respect to the plane of the structure generated by the vector generation unit; the distance estimation unit deriving the estimated distance from the 3-point or more laser irradiation points to the structure through the virtual coordinates generated by the virtual coordinate generation unit; and the angle estimation unit estimating the angle of the imaging unit with respect to the structure through the virtual coordinates generated by the virtual coordinate generation unit and the estimated distance derived by the distance estimation unit.
However, and given the 112 issues here above, the Examiner submits that Troy teaches determining angles (pan and tilt) for aiming the laser device at each of the target points, with coordinates determined and considered as being virtual in the calculator memory. The measuring of angles is known to be performed with respect to reference axes in the camera and the target structure. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider a matrix, or vectorial approach to define the reference axes and perform the geometric and/or trigonometric calculations of the coordinates, angles and distances with respect to these vectors for precision and methodical approach to assess the structure damages (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Troy in view of general geometrical suggestions so that the angle estimation module includes: a vector generation unit generating a normal vector with respect to the plane of the structure positioned in an optical axis direction of the imaging unit; a virtual coordinate generation unit generating coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiation points and virtual coordinates for the 3-point or more laser irradiated to the plane of the structure through the normal vector with respect to the plane of the structure generated by the vector generation unit; the distance estimation unit deriving the estimated distance from the 3-point or more laser irradiation points to the structure through the virtual coordinates generated by the virtual coordinate generation unit; and the angle estimation unit estimating the angle of the imaging unit with respect to the structure through the virtual coordinates generated by the virtual coordinate generation unit and the estimated distance derived by the distance estimation unit, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the assessment of the structure damages.
As to claims 6/13, Troy teaches the structure exterior inspection system of claim 1 and its method of use of claim 8.
Troy does not teach expressly wherein the quantification module includes: a scale estimation unit estimating a scale factor for converting a damaged area of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit into an actual size; a focal length estimation unit estimating an effective focal length of the imaging unit; and a quantification unit quantifying a shape of the damaged area of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit through the scale factor estimated by the scale estimation unit and the effective focal length estimated by the focal length estimation unit.
However, Troy teaches, ¶ 4, 32, 34, determining the size/area of the damage and building models for future structures, i.e. actual sizes from the measured areas/sizes. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider the optical properties of the camera, its lenses, the distance to the structure and the scales needed to calculate the actual dimensions of the damage (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Troy in view of general optical suggestions so that the quantification module includes: a scale estimation unit estimating a scale factor for converting a damaged area of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit into an actual size; a focal length estimation unit estimating an effective focal length of the imaging unit; and a quantification unit quantifying a shape of the damaged area of the structure appearing in the image captured by the imaging unit through the scale factor estimated by the scale estimation unit and the effective focal length estimated by the focal length estimation unit, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the assessment of the structure damages.
13- Claim 12 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troy in view of Delp et al. (PGPUB N. 20180031706)
As to claim 12, Troy teaches the structure exterior inspection method of claim 11.
Troy does not teach expressly wherein the step (ex) includes: (ex-1) positioning a target in front of a slide unit provided so that the mounting target is movable back and forth along a straight track; (ex-2) mounting the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit provided so as to maintain a uniform relative position to each other on the slide unit; (ex-3) irradiating the 3-point or more laser onto the target through the laser rangefinder, moving the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit in the target direction through the slide unit, and acquiring the 3-point or more laser irradiation points for each of a plurality of points; and (ex-4) estimating an irradiation angle of the 3-point or more laser through a change in position for each of the 3-point or more laser irradiation points acquired in the step (ex-3) and a movement distance of the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Delp teaches LIDAR based sensors (Abstract, Figs. 1-8), wherein the lidar sensors 111 can move in both translational and rotational aspects, similar to the rotational movements of Troy (¶ 48) to operate it for the distance measurements around the vehicle and lidar sensor. One PHOSITA would find it obvious to consider the translational aspect of the movement of the sensor on the tracks in addition to the rotational movements in Troy’s method in order to efficiently estimate the distances around the sensor (See MPEP 2143 Sect. I. B-D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus and method of Troy in view of Delp’s suggestions so that the step (ex) includes: (ex-1) positioning a target in front of a slide unit provided so that the mounting target is movable back and forth along a straight track; (ex-2) mounting the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit provided so as to maintain a uniform relative position to each other on the slide unit; (ex-3) irradiating the 3-point or more laser onto the target through the laser rangefinder, moving the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit in the target direction through the slide unit, and acquiring the 3-point or more laser irradiation points for each of a plurality of points; and (ex-4) estimating an irradiation angle of the 3-point or more laser through a change in position for each of the 3-point or more laser irradiation points acquired in the step (ex-3) and a movement distance of the laser rangefinder and the imaging unit., with the advantage of effectively optimizing the measurements of the distances to the structure.
Conclusion
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED K AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571-272-2287. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights