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 .
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. After reviewing the specification there appears to be no corresponding structure for measuring device, optical unit and control and analysis unit.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the specification does not reasonably provide enablement for the structure corresponding to measuring device, optical unit and control and analysis unit in regards to claim 1 and the structure for executing the corresponding method claims of claim 7. Further. The specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to make to the invention commensurate in scope with the claim(s).
In support of this conclusion of non-enablement the following Wands factors were considered: A) the breadth of the claims is overly immense. It covers nearly all methods and electronic imaging devices for scanning an environment and processing the captured image. B) nature of the invention-not applicable, C) the state of the prior art is very large, as it covers all methods and electronic imaging devices for scanning an environment and processing the captured image. D) the level of ordinary skill in the art is hard to determine as the claims cover all methods and electronic imaging devices for scanning an environment and processing the captured image. E) the level of predictability in the art is high as there are many ways for scanning an environment and processing the captured image. F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor is limited as the claims cover all methods and electronic imaging devices for scanning an environment and processing the captured image. G) the existence of working examples is unknown to the examiner. H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure is unduly high because the amount of electronic imaging devices and processors which are possibly applicable to the invention.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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 1-17 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim limitations “measuring device”, “optical unit” and” control and analysis unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. After reviewing the specification there appears to be no corresponding structure for “measuring device”, “optical unit” and” control and analysis unit”. Therefore, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim (claims 1-6) is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation “which key points together”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation.
The term “sufficiently” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “sufficiently” does not clearly define a level or value for determining a rough form of a scanned object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouch et al. (Crouch) (US 2020/0132850) in view of Warm et al. (Warm) (US 2008/0212059).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Crouch discloses optoelectronic measuring device having a scanning functionality for generating points by scanning sampling of surfaces of objects, in particular a laser scanner ([0008], [0056], a laser is used to generate a point cloud), comprising:
a radiation source, in particular a laser source, for generating measuring radiation ([0008], [0056], a laser is used to generate a point cloud),
an optical unit for emitting measuring radiation of form of a measuring beam into free space, whereby the emission direction of the measuring beam is variable about at least one axis, in particular two axes perpendicultar to one another ([0091], the light source is swept through vertical and horizontal angles),
an optoelectronic detector for detecting reflected measuring radiation ([0014], [0063], the reflectivity of a point is captured and measured using an optical detector),
a control and analysis unit designed for measuring a distance value for a respective scan point ([0070], [0105], the distance to a point is determined),
whereby the control and analysis unit is designed for automatic scan point reduction of the number of generated scan points by discarding of scan points, wherein the automatic scan point reduction comprises an object type-specific scan point reduction, whereby object type refers to the kind of object, in particular whereby the number of scan points remains unreduced for objects of a type not specified for scan point reduction ([0133], points not belonging to a own vehicle body are removed).
Crouch is silent about at least one position or angle sensor for measuring the emission direction.
Warm from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses at least one position or angle sensor for measuring the emission direction ([0005], a sensor for measuring an illumination angle is incorporated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Warm into the teachings of Crouch for determining an optimal lighting direction.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the reduction is based solely on scanning data of the generated scanning points ([0133], scanned points are analyzed for points not belonging to a own vehicle body which are subsequently removed).
Regarding claims 15-17, the limitations of claims 15-17 are rejected in the analysis of claims 1, 6, and 7. Crouch further discloses a computer program, which is stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, for controlling and/or carrying out the method ([0163], [0166], a stored program is executed).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 9-14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eckman et al. (Eckman) (US 2024/0070888) ([0033], [0041], [0078], objects in a point cloud are identified for removal).
Toth et al. (Toth) (US 2017/0076304) ([0009], points corresponding to the ground are removed a point cloud model).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY A WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7579. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Sath Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/JEFFERY A WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488