DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because lines in Figs. 1 and 3 are not sufficiently dense, dark and thick to give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics, as required by 37 CFR 1.84(l). Additionally, the pictures shown in Figs. 2 and 4-6 appear to be photographs or computer renderings that are not of sufficient quality to allow all details to be reproduced in a printed patent.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The phrase “and the small of the value” in line 23 of claim 1 should be changed to “and the smaller the value”.
Objection To The Specification
A substitute specification is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because equations 1-3 are illegible due to blurriness. Furthermore, many of the variables used in the equations are not defined in the specification. Consequently, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand the equations or the steps/algorithm that they represent. For these reasons, a substitute specification is required.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The standard for determining whether the enablement requirement is met was set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minerals Separation Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 270 (1916), which interpreted the statute as requiring that the claimed invention be enabled so that a person skilled in the art can make and use the invention without undue experimentation. See also MPEP 2164.01.
The present disclosure provides insufficient details to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention without having to engage in undue experimentation because one of ordinary skill in the art would have to (1) guess at the meaning of the illegible mathematical equations and the variables used in them, most of which are not defined in the present disclosure, and (2) guess at how to perform the corresponding algorithms.
Claim 1 recites three main steps for performing line structured light center extraction and several sub-steps for performing each of the three main steps. However, the present disclosure provides no discussion of how the main steps and corresponding sub-steps are performed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. For example, the only details that are provided in the present specification for performing the algorithms corresponding to steps 1-3 of claim 1 are equations 1-3. However, as indicated above in the objection to the specification, equations 1-3 are illegible and many of the variables used in the equations are not defined in the specification. Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and recites additional limitations of step 3, but step 3 is described in the present specification with reference to equation 3, which, as indicated above, is illegible. Furthermore, the detailed description of the present specification provides insufficient detail with reference to the figures of how the main steps and corresponding sub-steps are performed to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention.
For example, the present disclosure provides no discussion of how “an interference region with a small area and a reflective region with a width not meeting stripe features are filtered” recited in lines 7 and 8 of claim 1 are determined. The only discussion of this limitation is in the Brief Summary in paras. [0014]-[0015], which merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language without any discussion of how an interference region with a small area and a reflective region with a width not meeting stripe features are identified or filtered. Furthermore, the term “small area” is a relative term and it is unclear from the present disclosure what constitutes an area that is small and what constitutes an area that is not small. Therefore, it is unclear from the present disclosure how a small region is identified. Likewise, it is unclear from the present disclosure what constitutes a width not meeting stripe features because there is no discussion in the present disclosure of what the stripe features are or what a width is that does not meet stripe features.
As another example, the present disclosure provides no discussion of the manner in which “a connected domain meeting stripe region features” in lines 8 and 9 of claim 1 is determined. The present disclosure provides no discussion describing what the “stripe region features” are or how a determination is made as to whether a connected domain does or does not meet them. The only language in the present specification that discusses it is in para. [0014] of the Brief Summary and merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language and provides no additional description.
As another example, regarding the phrase “a small interference region and a large reflective region are removed” in line 10 of claim 1, the present disclosure provides no discussion of how a “small interference region” and “a large reflective region” are identified or how they are removed. The only discussion of this limitation is in paras. [0014]-[0015] of the Brief Summary, but the language merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language and provides no additional details. Also, there is no discussion in the present disclosure of what constitutes a “small” interference region or a “large” reflective region or how they are identified.
As yet another example, regarding the limitation “and some pseudo stripe regions meeting corresponding features are taken as substitutive seed points”, there is no description in the present disclosure of what a pseudo stripe region is, how a pseudo stripe region is identified, what the “corresponding features” are or how they are identified, or how a determination is made as to whether or not a pseudo stripe region meets the corresponding features. The only discussion of this limitation in the present specification is in para. [0015] of the Brief Summary, and it merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language, but provides no additional details.
As yet another example, regarding the limitation “an excessively dark laser stripe caused by a dark surface” in line 21 of claim 1, there is no discussion in the present disclosure of what an “excessively dark” laser stripe is, how it is identified, or what does and does not constitute an excessively dark laser stripe. Likewise, the there is no discussion in the present disclosure of does and does not constitute a “dark surface” or how a “dark surface” is identified. The only mention of this limitation is in para. [0016] of the Brief Summary of present disclosure, but the language used there merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language and provides no additional details.
As yet another example, regarding the phrase “an intensity representation value Vθ is established according to features of a high-brightness line laser stripe region” in lines 21-22 of claim 1, the present disclosure provides no discussion of what is meant by “high-brightness” or of how a line laser stripe region of high-brightness is identified or determined. The present disclosure also does not provide any discussion of what the “features of a high-brightness line laser stripe region” are, how they are identified or how they are used to establish an intensity representation value. In fact, the term “high-brightness” cannot be found anywhere in the present specification.
As yet another example, regarding the limitation “when the grayscale of the image decreases drastically” in line 30 of claim 1, there is no discussion in the present disclosure of what does and does not constitute a drastic decrease in grayscale or of how a drastic decrease in grayscale is identified or detected. This language is mentioned in para. [0013] of the Brief Summary, but the present specification merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language and provides no additional details.
As yet another example, regarding the limitation “a complete light stripe skeleton is extracted from each seed point by growing” in line 2 of claim 2, there is no discussion in the present disclosure of how the skeleton is extracted from each seed point “by growing”. This language is mentioned in para. [0016] of the Brief Summary, but it merely mirrors the above-quoted claim language without providing any additional details.
As yet another example, regarding the phrase “the score function is established to calculate extreme points of all intensity feature values” in lines 28-29 of claim 1, there is no discussion in the present specification of what the “intensity feature values” are or how they are determined. The score function is briefly discussed in paras. [0012], [0016] and [0025], but there is no discussion of the intensity feature values, what those values are or how their extreme points are calculated.
As yet another example, regarding the phrase “are uniquely filtered” in line 6 of claim 2, there is no discussion in the present disclosure of what is meant by this phrase or how the unique filtering is performed. There is no explicit mentioned of anything “uniquely filtered” in the present specification. Therefore, the meaning of “uniquely filtered” cannot be ascertained from the present disclosure.
For all of these reasons, claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement because a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the present disclosure would not be able to make/use the invention without having to engage in undue experimentation.
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 and 2 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the following phrases are indefinite:
the phrase “an interference region with a small area and a reflective region with a width not meeting stripe features are filtered” in lines 7 and 8 of claim 1 is indefinite because “small area” is a relative term and it is unclear from the claim language what constitutes an area that is small and what constitutes an area that is not small; consequently, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim; the phrase “not meeting stripe features” is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language what the “stripe features” are and how the “width” of the reflective region does or does not meet them; the present disclosure does not define what is meant by “small area” or what is meant by stripe features or how they are met;
the phrase “a connected domain meeting stripe region features is used as a light stripe region” in lines 8 and 9 of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language what the “stripe region features” are or how a connected domain does or does not meet them; the present disclosure does not define what is meant by “stripe region features” or how they are met by a connected domain;
the phrase “the seed point of the algorithm” in line 9 of claim 1 is indefinite because “the algorithm” lacks antecedent basis;
the phrase “and the seed point of the algorithm is selected” in lines 9 and 10 of claim 1 is indefinite because the claim does not recite any basis for the selection;
the phrase “a small interference region and a large reflective region are removed” in line 10 of claim 1 is indefinite because “small” and “large” are relative terms and it is unclear from the claim language what constitutes an interference region that is small and what constitutes an interference region that is not small; likewise, it is unclear what constitutes a reflective region that is large and what constitutes a reflective region that is not large; consequently, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim;
the phrase “some pseudo stripe regions” in line 11 of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language what constitutes a pseudo stripe region;
the phrase “and some pseudo stripe regions meeting corresponding features” in line 11 of claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim language what the “corresponding features” are;
the phrase “the center line” recited in line 12 of claim 1 lacks antecedent basis;
the phrase “according to the length of the center line” in line 13 is indefinite because it is unclear whether the center line referred to in this phrase is “the center line” recited in line 12 or one of the “multiple parallel center lines” recited in line 12;
the phrase “in the following cases” in line 16 is indefinite because it is unclear what the following cases are because the claim does not identify any “cases” that follow the phrase in the claim; also, the phrase ends with a period, which should only be at the end of the claim;
the phrase “establishing a score function” in lines 18 and 19 is indefinite because the claim does not define or provide any details of how the score function is established; the present specification also does not define or provide any details of how the score function is established;
the phrase “an intensity representation value Vθ is established according to features of a high-brightness line laser stripe region” in lines 17 and 18 is indefinite because “high-brightness” is a relative term and it is unclear from the claim language what does and does not constitute a high-brightness line laser stripe region or what its features are; the present specification also does not define or provide any details of what constitutes a high-brightness line laser stripe region or what its features are;
the phrase “the light stripe” in lines 5, 17 and 19-20 lacks antecedent basis and it is also unclear whether “the light stripe” is the same as the “laser stripe” recited in line 4 of the claim or some other light stripe;
the phrase “an excessively dark laser stripe caused by a dark surface” in line 21 is indefinite because “excessively dark” is a relative term and it is unclear from the claim what does and does not constitute an excessively dark laser stripe; likewise, the phrase “a dark surface” is indefinite because “dark” is a relative term and it is unclear from the claim what does and does not constitute a dark surface; consequently, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim;
the phrase “and the greater the possibility of the stripe direction” in lines 24-25 is indefinite because it is unclear whether it means the greater the possibility of the stripe direction determination being correct, or whether it means something else;
the phrase “extreme points of all intensity feature values” in lines 25-26 of the claim is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim and from the present specification what the intensity feature values are or what extreme points of those feature values are; the specification also does not define what the intensity feature values are or what extreme points of those feature values are;
the formula in line 28 is not legible and the terms used in the formula are not defined in the claim or in the present specification; and
the phrase “when the grayscale of the image decreases drastically” in line 30 is indefinite because “decreases drastically” is a relative term and it is unclear from the claim and from the present specification what does and does not constitute a drastic decrease; consequently, a person or ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the claim;
Regarding claim 2, the following phrases are indefinite:
the phrase “a complete light stripe skeleton is extracted from each seed point by growing” in line 2 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim and from the present specification the manner in which growing is performed to extract a complete light stripe skeleton;
the phrase “the intensity feature difference” in line 3 of claim 2 lacks antecedent basis and is therefore indefinite.
the phrase “no obvious extreme point” in line 3 of claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim and from the present specification when an extreme point becomes “obvious”;
the phrase “the intensity feature difference” in line 3 of line 2 lacks antecedent basis; and
the phase “are uniquely filtered” in line 6 of claim 2 is indefinite because it is unclear from the claim and from the present specification what is meant by the term “uniquely filtered”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL J SANTOS whose telephone number is (571)272-2867. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Matt Bella can be reached at (571)272-7778. 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.
/DANIEL JOSEPH SANTOS/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667