DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This non-final office action is in response to the application filled on 04/21/2024. Claims 1-8 are pending and examined below.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a) ‐ (d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP 2024/0054808, filed on 04/24/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of date of this action, IDS filled has been annotated and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, which recites “two light” line 19 is not clear. It is unclear whether two lights are irradiated from one light irradiation device or not. Usually, a light irradiation device irradiates a ray of lights/beam of light (not a single light). It is not clear whether two ray of lights is meant or not.
Dependent claim(s) 2-8 is/are also rejected because they do not resolve their parent deficiencies.
Regarding claim 5, which recites “cracked indoor/outdoor” is not clear. It is unclear whether cracked indoor/outdoor is referring both types of cracks (indoor crack and outdoor) are inputted to learning model to access or any one crack is input for example either indoor crack is input or outdoor crack is input.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, which recites “a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium” applicant is claiming a computer program product, but does not explicitly state that the computer program product is on a "non-transitory" computer readable medium. The currently recited language is not permissible under 101 as it may include both transitory and non-transitory computer readable medium (see, e.g., In re Nuijten, Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007) (slip. Op. at 18) ("A transitory, propagating signal ... is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.").
A computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory mediums which are in form of propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media (See MPEP 2111.05).
However, submitted specification describe that the computer readable medium is on a "non-transitory computer readable medium", see [0058] of PGPUB of submitted specification. Examiner suggests to add "non-transitory" to the preamble of the current claim 8 to overcome the 101 rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/02103330 (“Sun”), and further in view of US 2018/0247121 (“Loveland”).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Sun discloses a method for assessing a degree of damage to objects at disaster sites using skeletonization techniques (see at least [0057], where “the imminent defect condition may indicate high or significant severity with potential to cause risk to human life or major damage to the said target component or system.”; see also fig 3), the method comprising the steps of:
moving an investigation robot having a sensor module to a first location to analyze information of facility in a disaster site space (see at least [0008]), the sensor module including at least one of a LiDAR sensor, an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) sensor or at least one vision sensor (see at least [0006], where “predicting the remaining lifetime of a target where the defect was identified. Such sensed data may be from cameras such as in the case of visual and thermal images or numerical data as in case of the LASER sensor (e.g., LIDAR)”; see also [0041]);
acquiring sensing information corresponding to the first location based on simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) (see at least [0084], where “The model is built using up-to-date computer vision technique. All anomalies are mapped at their locations in the image”; see also fig 14, [0086] and [0121]);
identifying a facility segment of a first space based on the sensing information (see at least [0020], where “[0021], where “FIG. 9 depicts an image of a façade crack detection of a building”);
acquiring visual crack identification information corresponding to the facility segment, analyzed from vision image information of the sensing information, and unit crack information corresponding to the visual crack identification information (see at least [0021], where “FIG. 9 depicts an image of a façade crack detection of a building”; see also fig 15-18);
determining a crack expansion risk corresponding to the unit crack information (see at least [0087], where “Referring to FIG. 9, corresponding assessment of severity on the crack is shown.”; severity of crack is interpreted as crack expansion risk); and
forming disaster site assessment information of the first space using the crack expansion risk and outputting the disaster site assessment information to at least one device (see at least [0006], where “identifying at least one defect related information from the sensed data, wherein at least one defect related information including type of defect and degree of severity of the defect”; see also [0048] and fig 3),
wherein the step of acquiring the unit crack information comprises the step of:
extracting a unit crack image distinguished by a branch point, using a reference crack line acquired by skeletonization processing from a crack image from which the visual crack identification information is extracted (see at least [0051], [0071] and fig 16-18),
wherein the investigation robot has a light irradiation device to irradiate at least two light onto the crack (see at least [0052], visual sensed data is collected by light irradiation. See also [0100], where “projection”; during projection ray of light (plural light) is ejected),
wherein the unit crack image includes an image in which a new branch crack line identified by (see at least [0100], where “keep the camera in such a way that the projection of the camera on the facade is always orthogonal”), and
wherein the light irradiation device successively performs the (see at least [0097] and [0100]).
Sun does not disclose the following limitation:
an image in which a new branch crack line identified by oblique light irradiation is updated in an area where the reference crack line is determined by vertical light irradiation onto the crack.
However, Loveland discloses a method wherein an image in which a new damage point (see at least [0045], where “the UAV may fly around the perimeter at a first altitude to capture images of the structure at a first vertical angle, and then fly around the perimeter at a second altitude to capture additional images of the structure at a second vertical angle. The images may be captured at the two vertical angles with the sensors horizontally perpendicular or oblique to the faces of the roof.”; see also fig 5. Sun discloses a method to detect crack line. It would be obvious to incorporate various orientation imaging disclosed by Loveland to identify crack line disclosed by Sun).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun to incorporate the teachings of Loveland by including the above feature for providing accurate crack line estimate by avoiding imaging orientation related error.
Regarding claim 3, Sun further discloses a method for assessing the degree of damage to objects at disaster sites using skeletonization techniques wherein the step of determining the crack expansion risk comprises the step of:
determining the crack expansion risk according to a width and size of the reference crack line and a width and size of the branch crack line identified corresponding to the reference crack line (see at least [0108], where “Defects assessment in the form of cracks, delamination and stain quantification is performed by assigning several attributes to each defect class, using the results from the micro inspection. Such attributes, including crack width and defect area to bounding box ratio, are used assess the severity of each defect in conformance with, and to categorize their severity level as ‘Minor’, ‘Moderate’ or ‘Severe’.”; see also [0092], where “Potential defects may be identified by comparing against its normal condition.”; normal condition is interpreted as reference crack line).
Regarding claim 4, Sun further discloses a method for assessing the degree of damage to objects at disaster sites using skeletonization techniques wherein the step of determining the crack expansion risk comprises the steps of:
determining crack type information corresponding to the unit crack image (see at least [0071] and [0086]); and
acquiring the crack expansion risk by inputting the crack type information and array information between unit crack images to a learning model pre-trained with a crack risk (see at least [0048], where “the trained models comprise a defects identification trained model configured to identify different types of defects and a defect assessment trained model for each type of defect (collectively “Computer Vision Model”). The computer vision model helps performing visual detections and assessments of buildings and infrastructures from visual sensed data. Each defect assessment trained model is configured to assess the degrees of severity of each type of defect. Training data with different types of defects were fed into a pre-trained model to create a defect identification trained model. In some examples, the defects in the training data may be labeled by domain experts. Similarly, each of the defect assessment trained models may be created by feeding different degrees of severity of a predetermined type of defect to the pre-trained model.”).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood in view of indefiniteness rejection explained above, Sun further discloses a method for assessing the degree of damage to objects at disaster sites using skeletonization techniques wherein a training parameter of the learning model includes feature information for each cracked indoor/outdoor space facility object, to differently assess the crack expansion risk for a same crack type and array ( for the examination purposes the claim is interpreted as feature information for crack/defect in a space is input to the learning model to assess the expansion risk. see at least [0048], where “Training data with different types of defects were fed into a pre-trained model to create a defect identification trained model.”; see also [0086]).
Regarding claim 7, Sun further discloses a method for assessing the degree of damage to objects at disaster sites using skeletonization techniques wherein the step of outputting to the at least one device comprises the step of:
determining a collapse risk for the facility segment of the first space corresponding to the unit crack information and forming and outputting the disaster site assessment information including the determined collapse risk (see at least [0006], where “predicting the remaining lifetime of a target where the defect was identified”; see also [0051] and [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Sun further discloses a computer program stored in a computer-readable medium to enable a computer to perform the method defined in claim 1 (see at least [0006] and citation on claim 1 above).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/02103330 (“Sun”), and in view of US 2018/0247121 (“Loveland”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2010/0252268 (“Gu”).
Regarding claim 2, Sun in view of Loveland does not disclose claim 2. However, Gu discloses a method wherein the step of determining the crack expansion risk comprises the step of:
determining the crack expansion risk based on a density of branch points (see at least [0050], where “The extent and the speed of the micro-seismic events front in the fracture length direction are related to the hydraulic fracture propagation, and can be used to determine the hydraulic fracture length and propagation speed.”; see also [0061], where “Using a hydraulic fracture network computer simulator, the density of network branches and the fracture width of the network can be estimated by matching the extent and the propagation speed of the simulated fracture network with those deduced from the micro-seismic data. The branch density and fracture width are then used in the design of the pad volume for the main treatment.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun in view of Loveland to incorporate the teachings of Gu by including the above feature for providing accurate lifespan by determining risk score based on the crack density.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2024/02103330 (“Sun”), and in view of US 2018/0247121 (“Loveland”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2024/0328572 (Nicholls”).
Regarding claim 6, Sun in view of Loveland does not disclose claim 6. However, Nicholls discloses a method wherein the investigation robot has a mist sprayer to spray at least one mist onto the crack (see at least [0135], where “spraying suite”; see also [0136-139]), and
wherein the unit crack image includes an image in which a new reference crack line or a branch crack line identified by spraying the mist is updated in the area in which the reference crack line is determined (see at least [0003]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Sun in view of Loveland to incorporate the teachings of Nicholls by including the above feature for avoiding another source of spraying in a situation when crack may be visible by mist spray.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOHANA TANJU KHAYER whose telephone number is (408)918-7597. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7 am-5.30 pm, PT.
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, Abby Lin can be reached on 571-270-3976. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOHANA TANJU KHAYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights