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 . Claims 1-7 are pending under this Office action.
Claim Interpretation— 35 USC 112 (f)
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.
Claim Limitation Interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
Use of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word "means" (or "step for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word "means" (or "step for") are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitations "a request reception unit configured to", and "a display information generation unit configured to" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a request reception unit /a display information generation unit" coupled with functional language "configured to receive/ identify" without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-2, and its related dependent claims 3-5, has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
" a request reception unit configured to receive " is interpreted as to " a request reception unit (204) configured to receive a comparison request for comparing reference drawing data (D10A) being drawing data that serves as a reference and comparison drawing data (D10B) being drawing data to be compared to the reference drawing data (D10A) " (See Specification: Figs. 2-6, and [0057], " The request reception unit 204 receives a comparison request on the basis of the reference drawing data D10A for the designation received by the drawing selection unit 203 and the comparison drawing data D10B selected by the drawing selection unit 203").
" a display information generation unit configured to identify" is interpreted as to " a display information generation unit configured to identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the reference drawing data of the comparison request received by the request reception unit " (See Specification: Figs. 2-4, and [0059], "The display information generation unit 205 identifies reference drawing areas 10-1A to 10-3A that surround the drawing elements 11-1A to 11-3A included in the reference drawing data D10A of the comparison request received by the request reception unit 204 and comparison drawing areas 10-1B to 10-3B that surround the drawing elements 11-1B to 11-3B included in the comparison drawing data D10B of the comparison request received by the request reception unit 204, respectively, to thereby generate drawing display information D12 that displays the identified reference drawing areas 10-1A to 10-3A and the comparison drawing areas 10-1B to 10-3B in a superimposed manner ").
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner's interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitations treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, etc. (US 20050179694 A1) in view of Lindgren, etc. (US 8655082 B1), further in view of Reghetti, etc. (US 20090148050 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches that a drawing processing device for processing drawing data including one or more drawing elements that specify a shape or dimensions of a target object, the drawing processing device (See Liu: Fig. 14, and [0031], “According to an embodiment of the present invention, data input to the drawing comparison apparatus is a drawing in a standard image data format such as the BMP, JIF, etc. obtained by scanning a hard copy of a drawing, taking a picture, and directly converting data from a CAD file of the drawing. There is a further condition for the input image data format for the comparison apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. Described below is an example of a drawing of a binary image without comment text. However, any drawing contains a number of comment text portions for explanation of the sizes of parts and processes. Additionally, common image data obtained by scanning or taking a picture using a camera is not binary images. In accordance with an input condition, the image obtained by scanning or taking a picture is first converted into a binary image using a binarization device, then the comment text of a binary image is separated by a text-graph separation device, and the comment text is removed, thus performing a preprocess”) comprising:
a request reception unit configured to receive a comparison request for comparing reference drawing data being the drawing data that serves as a reference and comparison drawing data being the drawing data to be compared to the reference drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”); and
a display information generation unit configured to identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the reference drawing data of the comparison request received by the request reception unit and a comparison drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the comparison drawing data of the comparison request received by the request reception unit (See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0014], “The drawing comparing method according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extracting step of breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generating step of generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparing step of obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0117], “FIG. 7 shows the result obtained in the attribute graph framework generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 7A shows a sampling result, that is, one primitive expressed with a plurality of sample points. FIG. 7B shows an attribute graph framework showing the attribute graph framework obtained from the sample points in the Delaunay triangle tessellation method, and each vertex of the triangle corresponds to one sample point shown in FIG. 7A. The final attribute graph framework shown in FIG. 7C is obtained after simplifying the graph. The attribute graph generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention obviously enhances the reliability of a generated attribute graph as compared with the conventional method”. Note that outputting a drawing comparison result is mapped to the display information), to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner, wherein
the display information generation unit
calculates an area feature of the reference drawing area identified for the reference drawing data and an area feature of the comparison drawing area identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 8A-C, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0121], “As shown in FIG. 8, assuming that the straight lines AB and CD are separate primitives. The AB is a primitive to be processed, and the CD is a primitive adjacent to the AB, the attribute set with the directivity from the AB to the CD indicates”; and [0132], “relative distance. First, the distance between the intermediate points of these two primitives is calculated. To obtain the value of the relative distance, the distance is divided by the length of the AB”. Note that for each local structural neighborhood surrounding a primitive, the system extracts an attribute set that functions as the feature of that surrounding area, and the attributes encode shape, connectivity, and spatial properties of the local region, and this is mapped to the current limitation),
selects combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area on the basis of a similarity between the calculated area feature of the reference drawing area and the calculated area feature of the comparison drawing area when compared (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”. Note that the attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the reference drawing by comparing the attribute graphs is mapped to the similarity matching and selection), and
generates the drawing display information on the basis of the selected combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that Fig. 13 shows the com[parison output results).
However, Liu fails to explicitly disclose that identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element; and to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner.
However, Lindgren teaches that identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2 and Col. 6 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 7 Lines 1-10, “The drawing normalization module 116 automatically pre-processes or normalizes the drawing picture frames. In this manner, potential problems that may be encountered when comparing drawing pictures frames can automatically be identified. The batch capture processing module 104 submits a series of pairs of drawing picture frames and their reference counterparts to the drawing normalization module 116. Each pair of drawing picture frames are then compared and re-aligned to adjust them for, for example but without limitation, deviations in rotation, scale factor, mirror images, translations, and the like. If proper alignment cannot be completed, each pair of the drawing picture frames is flagged so that the user can perform a drawing comparison individually for this pair of the drawing picture frames, if desired. In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison”; and Col. 9 Lines 38-43, “In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison. The pairs of the normalized drawing picture frames can then be compared as explained in more detail in the context of discussion of FIG. 3 below”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, and adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region is mapped to identify and prepare corresponding area that surround the relevant content or the drawing element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Liu to have identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element as taught by Lindgren in order to provide a way to make easier and much efficient for the user to recognize changes and to capture the disposition made by the user as an aid for future users (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-3, and Col. 8 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 9 Lines 1-11, “Quite often, it is required of a user (i.e., a maintenance engineer, a mods engineer, freighter conversions engineer, a researcher, a physician, etc.) to compare two different versions of drawings stored for example in the source database 108 (e.g., the REDARS database), and then document the results of their findings for future use. These drawings are often very complex and therefore, it can be very time-consuming to determine the change that has been made. It would often be helpful to capture the conclusion reached by the user once the drawing differences are identified, as that knowledge can save time for future users that need to compare the same two drawings. As mentioned above, sometimes this information is captured by the user, but it can easily be lost or not recorded in a timely manner when the user is focused on solving the immediate task. The process 200 provides a way to make it easier and more efficient for the user to recognize what has changed, and to capture the disposition made by the user as an aid for future users”). Liu teaches a method and system that may perform drawing comparison between the reference drawing and the comparison drawing by comparing the attribute graph generated from the primitive and the correlation between the primitives extracted from the reference drawing and the comparison drawing; while Lindgren teaches a system and method that may normalize the received pairs of images by aligning, scaling, and geometrical adjusting operation to establish corresponding regions surrounding the relevant elements. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by Lindgren to normalize the reference drawing and the comparison drawing and establish corresponding regions surrounding the elements. The motivation to modify Liu by Lindgren is “Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”.
However, Liu, modified by Lindgren, fails to explicitly disclose that to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner.
However, Reghetti teaches that to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner (See Reghetti: Fig. 11 and [0095], “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the compare zoom feature 150 may have first been used to zoom in on any new walls 152 that might have been added to a revised drawing. This would be done by selecting walls 154 from the list of selected features to locate and then hitting the OK button. The system would then zoom in on any new walls 152 that have been added, which are illustrated in a different color (or highlighted in some other way) than unchanged objects in the revised drawing. In order to prepare pricing information for the added walls, or to revise scheduling to accommodate the added walls, the system could then capture information related to all of the changes involved in adding the walls, including all parts that might have been included within the walls, such as the wood or metal studs and slats, the sheetrock, the attachment screws, the door frames, the doors and all door components, including hinges, door knobs, etc.”. Note that highlighting the added, deleted, unchanged object is a practical form of superimposed or differentiated display, and it is mapped to the superimposed manner).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Liu to have to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner as taught by Reghetti in order to reduce the file's size and simplifying the file for subsequent use (See Reghetti: Fig. 1, and [0045], “In order to improve a designer's ability to work with a CAD drawing, such as the main CAD drawing of a large building, or to export/import that drawing to and from a program like AutoSPRINK, it is first necessary to clean-up the CAD drawing in a way that will reduce the complexity of the CAD drawing and make it easier for the designer to add and modify their design components. Clean-up or reduction of the CAD drawing's database file(s), and therefore the CAD drawing, occurs in the order of entity (a geometric object) exposure”). Liu teaches a method and system that may perform drawing comparison between the reference drawing and the comparison drawing by comparing the attribute graph generated from the primitive and the correlation between the primitives extracted from the reference drawing and the comparison drawing; while Reghetti teaches a system and method that may compare two drawings to create a compare drawing that includes options for highlighting added and deleted graphic objects, as well as unchanged graphic objects, and compare one drawing to many or many drawings to many drawings, whether or not the drawings are similar. Therefore, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu by Reghetti to compare two drawings and highlight the difference between two drawings or superimpose two drawings to differentiate or display the visual difference between two drawings. The motivation to modify Liu by Reghetti is “Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way”.
Regarding claim 2, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach that a drawing processing device for processing drawing data including one or more drawing elements that specify a shape or dimensions of a target object, the drawing processing device (See Liu: Fig. 14, and [0031], “According to an embodiment of the present invention, data input to the drawing comparison apparatus is a drawing in a standard image data format such as the BMP, JIF, etc. obtained by scanning a hard copy of a drawing, taking a picture, and directly converting data from a CAD file of the drawing. There is a further condition for the input image data format for the comparison apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. Described below is an example of a drawing of a binary image without comment text. However, any drawing contains a number of comment text portions for explanation of the sizes of parts and processes. Additionally, common image data obtained by scanning or taking a picture using a camera is not binary images. In accordance with an input condition, the image obtained by scanning or taking a picture is first converted into a binary image using a binarization device, then the comment text of a binary image is separated by a text-graph separation device, and the comment text is removed, thus performing a preprocess”) comprising:
a request reception unit configured to receive a comparison request for comparing reference drawing data being the drawing data that serves as a reference and comparison drawing data being the drawing data to be compared to the reference drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”); and
a display information generation unit configured to identify a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2 and Col. 6 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 7 Lines 1-10, “The drawing normalization module 116 automatically pre-processes or normalizes the drawing picture frames. In this manner, potential problems that may be encountered when comparing drawing pictures frames can automatically be identified. The batch capture processing module 104 submits a series of pairs of drawing picture frames and their reference counterparts to the drawing normalization module 116. Each pair of drawing picture frames are then compared and re-aligned to adjust them for, for example but without limitation, deviations in rotation, scale factor, mirror images, translations, and the like. If proper alignment cannot be completed, each pair of the drawing picture frames is flagged so that the user can perform a drawing comparison individually for this pair of the drawing picture frames, if desired. In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison”; and Col. 9 Lines 38-43, “In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison. The pairs of the normalized drawing picture frames can then be compared as explained in more detail in the context of discussion of FIG. 3 below”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, and adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region is mapped to identify and prepare corresponding area that surround the relevant content or the drawing element) included in the reference drawing data of the comparison request received by the request reception unit and a comparison drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the comparison drawing data of the comparison request received by the request reception unit (See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0014], “The drawing comparing method according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extracting step of breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generating step of generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparing step of obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0117], “FIG. 7 shows the result obtained in the attribute graph framework generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 7A shows a sampling result, that is, one primitive expressed with a plurality of sample points. FIG. 7B shows an attribute graph framework showing the attribute graph framework obtained from the sample points in the Delaunay triangle tessellation method, and each vertex of the triangle corresponds to one sample point shown in FIG. 7A. The final attribute graph framework shown in FIG. 7C is obtained after simplifying the graph. The attribute graph generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention obviously enhances the reliability of a generated attribute graph as compared with the conventional method”. Note that outputting a drawing comparison result is mapped to the display information), to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner (See Reghetti: Fig. 11 and [0095], “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the compare zoom feature 150 may have first been used to zoom in on any new walls 152 that might have been added to a revised drawing. This would be done by selecting walls 154 from the list of selected features to locate and then hitting the OK button. The system would then zoom in on any new walls 152 that have been added, which are illustrated in a different color (or highlighted in some other way) than unchanged objects in the revised drawing. In order to prepare pricing information for the added walls, or to revise scheduling to accommodate the added walls, the system could then capture information related to all of the changes involved in adding the walls, including all parts that might have been included within the walls, such as the wood or metal studs and slats, the sheetrock, the attachment screws, the door frames, the doors and all door components, including hinges, door knobs, etc.”. Note that highlighting the added, deleted, unchanged object is a practical form of superimposed or differentiated display, and it is mapped to the superimposed manner), wherein
the display information generation unit is further configured to
identify a number of the reference drawing areas identified for the reference drawing data and a number of the comparison drawing areas identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; and [0033], “Furthermore, in the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention, the primitive extraction unit comprises an image thinning unit for receiving a binary image and converting all bold lines in a drawing into a line of 1 pixel width, an image breakdown unit for breaking down a drawing into a set of rough primitives using a node of a thinned image, and a merge-split unit for forming meaningful primitives by recombining rough primitives, which are output of the image breakdown unit, in the merge-split process”. Note that extracting and processing multiple primitives and their surrounding structural neighborhood is mapped to the number of drawing areas),
in a case where the number of the identified reference drawing areas and the number of the identified comparison drawing areas are both 1, generate the drawing display information for the reference drawing area identified for the reference drawing data and the comparison drawing area identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that single pair of drawings are used and the result is displayed on Fig. 13, and this is mapped to the number of area is 1),
in a case where at least one of the number of the identified reference drawing areas and the number of the identified comparison drawing areas is more than 1, calculate area features of the reference drawing areas identified for the reference drawing data and area features of the comparison drawing areas identified for the comparison drawing data (See Reghetti: Figs. 12A-B, and [0092], “Naturally, the compare feature of the present invention is also capable of comparing any two drawings, even where one is not a revision of the other. When the system detects that two drawings to be compared are not similar, it will warn the user and if the user accepts the warning, then the system will compare the dissimilar drawings. As noted below with respect to FIGS. 12a and 13, the Batch Load compare feature of the present invention can be useful when comparing a large number of both similar and dissimilar drawings. For example, when a user is attempting to determine the degree of commonality between the drawings of different floors of a multistory building, the ability to batch compare a large number of drawings, including those which are dissimilar, can be very handy. In this manner, the one or two dissimilar floors out of 30 or 40 similar floors can be picked out very quickly”),
select combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area on the basis of a similarity between the calculated area feature of the reference drawing area and the calculated area feature of the comparison drawing area when compared (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”. Note that the attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the reference drawing by comparing the attribute graphs is mapped to the similarity matching and selection), and
generate the drawing display information on the basis of the selected combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that Fig. 13 shows the com[parison output results).
Regarding claim 3, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Lindgren teaches that the drawing processing device according to claim 1, wherein the display information generation unit generates the drawing display information by aligning the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area for each of the combinations such that the number of overlapping portions increases when the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area are superimposed (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2 and Col. 6 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 7 Lines 1-10, “The drawing normalization module 116 automatically pre-processes or normalizes the drawing picture frames. In this manner, potential problems that may be encountered when comparing drawing pictures frames can automatically be identified. The batch capture processing module 104 submits a series of pairs of drawing picture frames and their reference counterparts to the drawing normalization module 116. Each pair of drawing picture frames are then compared and re-aligned to adjust them for, for example but without limitation, deviations in rotation, scale factor, mirror images, translations, and the like. If proper alignment cannot be completed, each pair of the drawing picture frames is flagged so that the user can perform a drawing comparison individually for this pair of the drawing picture frames, if desired. In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison”; and Col. 4 Lines 39-55, “System 100 compares drawings and generates comparison and disposition reports and databases using a batch capture process. Resulting databases make it easier for a user to recognize what has changed, and to capture a disposition of a drawing made by the user as an aid for future users. The disposition may comprise, for example but without limitation, a recommended action, and the like. System 100 visualizes differences between old (engineering) designs relative to related current revisions, and captures (engineering) decisions based on the differences. For each pair of drawing frames, an additional picture frame is created that displays the differences; however, unlike existing arts, the system 100 submits an entire set of drawings in a batch process (typically tens, hundreds or thousands of comparisons are required). A statistical report is communicated, identifying which of the drawing comparisons are recommended and not recommended for review, thereby saving considerable time”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region, and create additional frame to display the difference, and this is mapped to the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area are superimposed ).
Regarding claim 4, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Lindgren and Reghetti teach that the drawing processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the display information generation unit generates the drawing display information for displaying a drawing comparison screen in which a reference drawing data display area for displaying the reference drawing data and a comparison drawing data display area for displaying the comparison drawing data are arranged side by side (See Reghetti: Figs. 12A-B, and [0103], “A number of conversion options can also be selected by the user as shown in FIG. 12b. The comparison options 158 can also be used for assisting in the conversion of objects from any type of CAD or other drawing program, such as AutoCAD, into any type of third party program, such as AutoSPRINK. The X-Ref's option gives the user the ability to insert X-Refs that are attached to the drawings to be compared (which is the default setting), or to ignore X-Ref's in the drawings to be compared. The blocks option gives the user the ability to retain blocks as blocks, or to cause the blocks to be expanded (exploded) into the drawings as their individual elements. Since proxy objects may be useful to some users when comparing results, the Acad proxy option either compares AutoCAD proxy objects (when checked) or ignores them, while the custom proxy option gives users the same option for non-AutoCAD proxy objects”. Note that inserting the X-reference to the comparison image is mapped to displaying them side-by side), and
the drawing comparison screen
displays the drawing element included in the reference drawing area superimposed on the drawing element included in the comparison drawing area displayed in the comparison drawing data display area (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2, and Col. 4 Lines 39-55, “System 100 compares drawings and generates comparison and disposition reports and databases using a batch capture process. Resulting databases make it easier for a user to recognize what has changed, and to capture a disposition of a drawing made by the user as an aid for future users. The disposition may comprise, for example but without limitation, a recommended action, and the like. System 100 visualizes differences between old (engineering) designs relative to related current revisions, and captures (engineering) decisions based on the differences. For each pair of drawing frames, an additional picture frame is created that displays the differences; however, unlike existing arts, the system 100 submits an entire set of drawings in a batch process (typically tens, hundreds or thousands of comparisons are required). A statistical report is communicated, identifying which of the drawing comparisons are recommended and not recommended for review, thereby saving considerable time”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region, and create additional frame to display the difference, and this is mapped to the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area are superimposed ), or
displays the drawing element included in the comparison drawing area superimposed on the drawing element included in the reference drawing area displayed in the reference drawing data display area (See Reghetti: Fig. 11 and [0095], “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the compare zoom feature 150 may have first been used to zoom in on any new walls 152 that might have been added to a revised drawing. This would be done by selecting walls 154 from the list of selected features to locate and then hitting the OK button. The system would then zoom in on any new walls 152 that have been added, which are illustrated in a different color (or highlighted in some other way) than unchanged objects in the revised drawing. In order to prepare pricing information for the added walls, or to revise scheduling to accommodate the added walls, the system could then capture information related to all of the changes involved in adding the walls, including all parts that might have been included within the walls, such as the wood or metal studs and slats, the sheetrock, the attachment screws, the door frames, the doors and all door components, including hinges, door knobs, etc.”. Note that highlighting the added, deleted, unchanged object is a practical form of superimposed or differentiated display, and it is mapped to the superimposed manner).
Regarding claim 5, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Liu and Reghetti teach that the drawing processing device according to claim I, further comprising
a drawing selection unit configured to receive a designation for the reference drawing data and select the comparison drawing data from a plurality of pieces of candidate drawing data being candidates for the comparison drawing data (See Reghetti: Fig. 1, and [0041], “The present invention is directed to methods, apparatuses/systems, and software for comparing two drawings to create a compare drawing that includes options for highlighting added and deleted graphic objects, as well as unchanged graphic objects, and comparing one drawing to many or many drawings to many drawings, whether or not the drawings are similar. The invention includes a filtered zoom feature that enables the user to zoom in on a filtered set of graphic objects and to continue to zoom in until a single graphic object is depicted. Detailed information from selected graphic objects can be captured and placed in a list for generating schedule changes, bill of materials, and for other purposes. The invention further includes the ability to detect and report any variances between the drawings, including area differences between drawings depicting physical objects”), wherein
the drawing selection unit
calculates drawing features of the reference drawing data and drawing features of the candidate drawing data (See Liu: Fig. 1, and [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and a attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”), and
selects the comparison drawing data on the basis of a similarity between the calculated drawing features of the reference drawing data and the calculated drawing features of the candidate drawing data (See Reghetti: Figs. 12-13, and [0092], “Naturally, the compare feature of the present invention is also capable of comparing any two drawings, even where one is not a revision of the other. When the system detects that two drawings to be compared are not similar, it will warn the user and if the user accepts the warning, then the system will compare the dissimilar drawings. As noted below with respect to FIGS. 12a and 13, the Batch Load compare feature of the present invention can be useful when comparing a large number of both similar and dissimilar drawings. For example, when a user is attempting to determine the degree of commonality between the drawings of different floors of a multistory building, the ability to batch compare a large number of drawings, including those which are dissimilar, can be very handy. In this manner, the one or two dissimilar floors out of 30 or 40 similar floors can be picked out very quickly”), and
the request reception unit receives the comparison request on the basis of the reference drawing data related to the designation received by the drawing selection unit and the comparison drawing data selected by the drawing selection unit (See Reghetti: Figs. 12-13, and [0102], “As previously noted, in addition to these drawing options, the dialog box 157 contains a program option to "batch load" up many drawings (similar and dissimilar) or a complete set of both base and revision drawings to allow the user to simply toggle through numerous drawings or an entire set of revised drawings--one at a time. The ability to batch compare several drawings and have the system automatically perform the operation without further user input is a very useful feature. Even more so because as illustrated in FIG. 13, the Batch Load function 160 allows the user to place hundreds of drawings (up to 1024) in the old drawing file list 162 and hundreds more (again up to 1024) in the revised drawing list 164, in any order, and the system will automatically find all of the similar drawings to compare to one another and perform the comparison functions automatically. If any drawing in the new drawing list is missing a corresponding revised drawing, or for any reason a drawing could not be compared, the system will provide an error message list”).
Regarding claim 6, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach that a drawing processing method to be executed by a computer for processing drawing data including one or more drawing elements that specify a shape or dimensions of a target object, the drawing processing method (See Liu: Fig. 14, and [0031], “According to an embodiment of the present invention, data input to the drawing comparison apparatus is a drawing in a standard image data format such as the BMP, JIF, etc. obtained by scanning a hard copy of a drawing, taking a picture, and directly converting data from a CAD file of the drawing. There is a further condition for the input image data format for the comparison apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. Described below is an example of a drawing of a binary image without comment text. However, any drawing contains a number of comment text portions for explanation of the sizes of parts and processes. Additionally, common image data obtained by scanning or taking a picture using a camera is not binary images. In accordance with an input condition, the image obtained by scanning or taking a picture is first converted into a binary image using a binarization device, then the comment text of a binary image is separated by a text-graph separation device, and the comment text is removed, thus performing a preprocess”) comprising:
a request reception step of receiving a comparison request for comparing reference drawing data being the drawing data that serves as a reference and comparison drawing data being the drawing data to be compared to the reference drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”); and
a display information generation step of identifying a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2 and Col. 6 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 7 Lines 1-10, “The drawing normalization module 116 automatically pre-processes or normalizes the drawing picture frames. In this manner, potential problems that may be encountered when comparing drawing pictures frames can automatically be identified. The batch capture processing module 104 submits a series of pairs of drawing picture frames and their reference counterparts to the drawing normalization module 116. Each pair of drawing picture frames are then compared and re-aligned to adjust them for, for example but without limitation, deviations in rotation, scale factor, mirror images, translations, and the like. If proper alignment cannot be completed, each pair of the drawing picture frames is flagged so that the user can perform a drawing comparison individually for this pair of the drawing picture frames, if desired. In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison”; and Col. 9 Lines 38-43, “In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison. The pairs of the normalized drawing picture frames can then be compared as explained in more detail in the context of discussion of FIG. 3 below”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, and adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region is mapped to identify and prepare corresponding area that surround the relevant content or the drawing element) included in the reference drawing data of the comparison request received in the request reception step and a comparison drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the comparison drawing data of the comparison request received in the request reception step(See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0014], “The drawing comparing method according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extracting step of breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generating step of generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparing step of obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0117], “FIG. 7 shows the result obtained in the attribute graph framework generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 7A shows a sampling result, that is, one primitive expressed with a plurality of sample points. FIG. 7B shows an attribute graph framework showing the attribute graph framework obtained from the sample points in the Delaunay triangle tessellation method, and each vertex of the triangle corresponds to one sample point shown in FIG. 7A. The final attribute graph framework shown in FIG. 7C is obtained after simplifying the graph. The attribute graph generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention obviously enhances the reliability of a generated attribute graph as compared with the conventional method”. Note that outputting a drawing comparison result is mapped to the display information) , to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner (See Reghetti: Fig. 11 and [0095], “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the compare zoom feature 150 may have first been used to zoom in on any new walls 152 that might have been added to a revised drawing. This would be done by selecting walls 154 from the list of selected features to locate and then hitting the OK button. The system would then zoom in on any new walls 152 that have been added, which are illustrated in a different color (or highlighted in some other way) than unchanged objects in the revised drawing. In order to prepare pricing information for the added walls, or to revise scheduling to accommodate the added walls, the system could then capture information related to all of the changes involved in adding the walls, including all parts that might have been included within the walls, such as the wood or metal studs and slats, the sheetrock, the attachment screws, the door frames, the doors and all door components, including hinges, door knobs, etc.”. Note that highlighting the added, deleted, unchanged object is a practical form of superimposed or differentiated display, and it is mapped to the superimposed manner), wherein
the display information generation step comprises
calculating an area feature of the reference drawing area identified for the reference drawing data and an area feature of the comparison drawing area identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 8A-C, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0121], “As shown in FIG. 8, assuming that the straight lines AB and CD are separate primitives. The AB is a primitive to be processed, and the CD is a primitive adjacent to the AB, the attribute set with the directivity from the AB to the CD indicates”; and [0132], “relative distance. First, the distance between the intermediate points of these two primitives is calculated. To obtain the value of the relative distance, the distance is divided by the length of the AB”. Note that for each local structural neighborhood surrounding a primitive, the system extracts an attribute set that functions as the feature of that surrounding area, and the attributes encode shape, connectivity, and spatial properties of the local region, and this is mapped to the current limitation),
selecting combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area on the basis of a similarity between the calculated area feature of the reference drawing area and the calculated area feature of the comparison drawing area when compared (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”. Note that the attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the reference drawing by comparing the attribute graphs is mapped to the similarity matching and selection), and
generating the drawing display information on the basis of the selected combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that Fig. 13 shows the com[parison output results).
Regarding claim 7, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above. Further, Liu, Lindgren, and Reghetti teach that a drawing processing method to be executed by a computer for processing drawing data including one or more drawing elements that specify a shape or dimensions of a target object, the drawing processing method (See Liu: Fig. 14, and [0031], “According to an embodiment of the present invention, data input to the drawing comparison apparatus is a drawing in a standard image data format such as the BMP, JIF, etc. obtained by scanning a hard copy of a drawing, taking a picture, and directly converting data from a CAD file of the drawing. There is a further condition for the input image data format for the comparison apparatus according to the embodiment of the present invention. Described below is an example of a drawing of a binary image without comment text. However, any drawing contains a number of comment text portions for explanation of the sizes of parts and processes. Additionally, common image data obtained by scanning or taking a picture using a camera is not binary images. In accordance with an input condition, the image obtained by scanning or taking a picture is first converted into a binary image using a binarization device, then the comment text of a binary image is separated by a text-graph separation device, and the comment text is removed, thus performing a preprocess”) comprising:
a request reception step of receiving a comparison request for comparing reference drawing data being the drawing data that serves as a reference and comparison drawing data being the drawing data to be compared to the reference drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”); and
a display information generation step of identifying a reference drawing area surrounding the drawing element (See Lindgren: Figs. 1-2 and Col. 6 Lines 61-67 ~ Col. 7 Lines 1-10, “The drawing normalization module 116 automatically pre-processes or normalizes the drawing picture frames. In this manner, potential problems that may be encountered when comparing drawing pictures frames can automatically be identified. The batch capture processing module 104 submits a series of pairs of drawing picture frames and their reference counterparts to the drawing normalization module 116. Each pair of drawing picture frames are then compared and re-aligned to adjust them for, for example but without limitation, deviations in rotation, scale factor, mirror images, translations, and the like. If proper alignment cannot be completed, each pair of the drawing picture frames is flagged so that the user can perform a drawing comparison individually for this pair of the drawing picture frames, if desired. In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison”; and Col. 9 Lines 38-43, “In one embodiment, several picture frames may be combined into one picture before or after performing one or more of these re-alignment transformations, prior to the comparison. The pairs of the normalized drawing picture frames can then be compared as explained in more detail in the context of discussion of FIG. 3 below”. Note that the received pairs of images is mapped to the comparison drawing data and the reference drawing data, and normalizing module to align, scale, and adjust geometrically the pairs to establish corresponding normalized drawing region is mapped to identify and prepare corresponding area that surround the relevant content or the drawing element) included in the reference drawing data of the comparison request received in the request reception step and a comparison drawing area surrounding the drawing element included in the comparison drawing data of the comparison request received in the request reception step (See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0014], “The drawing comparing method according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extracting step of breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generating step of generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparing step of obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; [0116], “FIG. 6 is a conventional attribute graph obtained by expressing one primitive as one point (intermediate point) . The gray box shown in FIG. 6A indicates the sample point of the primitive, and FIG. 6B shows an attribute graph obtained by the Delaunay triangle tessellation method using these sample points. As shown in FIG. 6A, the primitive 7 is spatially adjacent to the primitives 1 through 6, and the primitives 6 and 5 interfere with the primitive 7. Therefore, it is not adjacent to the primitive 8. However, in the attribute graph shown in FIG. 6B generated using one sample point, the connection between the primitive 7 and the primitives 1 through 3 is lost, and the connection to the primitive 8 is mistakenly added”; and [0117], “FIG. 7 shows the result obtained in the attribute graph framework generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 7A shows a sampling result, that is, one primitive expressed with a plurality of sample points. FIG. 7B shows an attribute graph framework showing the attribute graph framework obtained from the sample points in the Delaunay triangle tessellation method, and each vertex of the triangle corresponds to one sample point shown in FIG. 7A. The final attribute graph framework shown in FIG. 7C is obtained after simplifying the graph. The attribute graph generating method according to an embodiment of the present invention obviously enhances the reliability of a generated attribute graph as compared with the conventional method”. Note that outputting a drawing comparison result is mapped to the display information), to thereby generate drawing display information for displaying the identified reference drawing area and the identified comparison drawing area in a superimposed manner (See Reghetti: Fig. 11 and [0095], “For example, as illustrated in FIG. 11, the compare zoom feature 150 may have first been used to zoom in on any new walls 152 that might have been added to a revised drawing. This would be done by selecting walls 154 from the list of selected features to locate and then hitting the OK button. The system would then zoom in on any new walls 152 that have been added, which are illustrated in a different color (or highlighted in some other way) than unchanged objects in the revised drawing. In order to prepare pricing information for the added walls, or to revise scheduling to accommodate the added walls, the system could then capture information related to all of the changes involved in adding the walls, including all parts that might have been included within the walls, such as the wood or metal studs and slats, the sheetrock, the attachment screws, the door frames, the doors and all door components, including hinges, door knobs, etc.”. Note that highlighting the added, deleted, unchanged object is a practical form of superimposed or differentiated display, and it is mapped to the superimposed manner), wherein
the display information generation step comprises
identifying a number of the reference drawing areas identified for the reference drawing data and a number of the comparison drawing areas identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 6A-7C, and [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; and [0033], “Furthermore, in the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention, the primitive extraction unit comprises an image thinning unit for receiving a binary image and converting all bold lines in a drawing into a line of 1 pixel width, an image breakdown unit for breaking down a drawing into a set of rough primitives using a node of a thinned image, and a merge-split unit for forming meaningful primitives by recombining rough primitives, which are output of the image breakdown unit, in the merge-split process”. Note that extracting and processing multiple primitives and their surrounding structural neighborhood is mapped to the number of drawing areas),
in a case where the number of the identified reference drawing areas and the number of the identified comparison drawing areas are both 1, generating the drawing display information for the reference drawing area identified for the reference drawing data and the comparison drawing area identified for the comparison drawing data (See Liu: Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that single pair of drawings are used and the result is displayed on Fig. 13, and this is mapped to the number of area is 1),
in a case where at least one of the number of the identified reference drawing areas and the number of the identified comparison drawing areas is more than 1, calculating area features of the reference drawing areas identified for the reference drawing data and area features of the comparison drawing areas identified for the comparison drawing data (See Reghetti: Figs. 12A-B, and [0092], “Naturally, the compare feature of the present invention is also capable of comparing any two drawings, even where one is not a revision of the other. When the system detects that two drawings to be compared are not similar, it will warn the user and if the user accepts the warning, then the system will compare the dissimilar drawings. As noted below with respect to FIGS. 12a and 13, the Batch Load compare feature of the present invention can be useful when comparing a large number of both similar and dissimilar drawings. For example, when a user is attempting to determine the degree of commonality between the drawings of different floors of a multistory building, the ability to batch compare a large number of drawings, including those which are dissimilar, can be very handy. In this manner, the one or two dissimilar floors out of 30 or 40 similar floors can be picked out very quickly”),
selecting combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area on the basis of a similarity between the calculated area feature of the reference drawing area and the calculated area feature of the comparison drawing area when compared (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”. Note that the attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the reference drawing by comparing the attribute graphs is mapped to the similarity matching and selection), and
generating the drawing display information on the basis of the selected combinations of the reference drawing area and the comparison drawing area (See Liu: Figs. 1-2 and 14, and [0013], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention compares a comparison drawing stored in a database with an inquiry drawing, and includes: a primitive extraction unit for breaking down an input drawing into primitives which are components of a drawing; an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph describing the configuration and contents of the described drawing; and an attribute graph comparison unit for obtaining the correspondence between the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing by comparing the attribute graphs obtained from the comparison drawing and the inquiry drawing”; [0032], “The drawing comparison apparatus according to the present invention extracts primitives forming a drawing from an input image, generates an attribute graph from the primitives, and finally compares the attribute graphs, thereby obtaining the correspondence between the two drawings. Particularly, the drawing comparison apparatus according to an embodiment of the present invention comprises a primitive extraction unit for receiving a binary image, and breaking down a drawing into primitives such as a straight line, a curve, an ellipse, etc., an attribute graph generation unit for generating an attribute graph in a variation of the Delaunay method using the primitives extracted by the primitive extraction unit and defining an attribute value for it, and an attribute graph comparison unit for calculating the correspondence between two attribute graphs generated by the attribute graph generation unit and outputting a drawing comparison result”; Figs. 9-13, and [0140], “FIGS. 9A and 9B respectively show an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. The drawing of FIG. 9A shows a portion of a bearing of a machine. FIG. 9B shows the entire bearing. FIGS. 10A and 10B respectively show the rough primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 11A and 11B respectively show the primitives of an inquiry drawing and a comparison drawing. FIGS. 12A and 12B are attached drawings respectively corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing. FIG. 13 shows an example of a comparison result”; and [0145], “Finally, the attribute graph comparison unit 12 calculates the correspondence between the attribute graphs corresponding to the inquiry drawing and the comparison drawing, and obtains the result as shown in FIG. 13. FIG. 13 shows the portion determined by the attribute graph comparison unit 12 to match the inquiry drawing”. Note that Fig. 13 shows the com[parison output results).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON G LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Devona E Faulk can be reached at 571-272-7515. 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.
/GORDON G LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2618
Prosecution Insights