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 1-2, 12-38 are pending. Independent claims 1, 14, and 27 are amended. Claim 38 is new.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of claims 1, 14 and 27 are sufficient to overcome the prior art rejections. New grounds of rejections are made. See detail below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 12-13 and 38 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, “a anchor object” is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 2 and 12-13 are objected due to claim dependency.
Regarding claim 38, “at least one at least one second frame” appears to be –at least on second frame--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 27-28 are toward "a computer program product comprising a memory device having computer executable instructions stored thereon.” The broadest reasonable interpretation of the highlighted limitation covers transitory propagating signals or program per se, which are non-statutory. The disclosure in [0009] regarding “memory device” does not make it clear that transitory signals are completely excluded from the interpretation of the highlighted limitation. For example, memory device could be just a virtual memory which is transitory signal. Therefore, a broadest reasonable interpretation of claims 27-28 cover a transitory signal or program per se. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. To overcome this rejection, applicant should insert –- non-transitory — before “memory device.” Such an amendment is not considered new matter. See the “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” memo dated January 26, 2010 (OG Cite: 1351 OG 212; OG Date: 23 Feb 2010).
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.
Claims 1-2 and 12-13 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, “the second anchor object” lacks antecedent basis. Change “a anchor object in a second part of the point cloud” to -- a second anchor object in a second part of the point cloud—would overcome the rejction.
Claims 2 and 12-13 are rejected due to claim dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. 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.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights