DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
In Claim 1, limitation A), the limitation lacks any details as to how the position estimate is determined. In limitation B), the limitation fails to explicitly state what is being determined by the “controller of a 3D geo-located frustum”. In limitation C), this appears to be the camera actually performing an image capture representing a field of view, not “obtaining” which is ambiguous and confusing. In limitation E), substep b), “revising” and “according to” is unclear, and should be written to demonstrate an active method step – which similarly applies to substep c) with the “adjusting” terminology. In limitation F), this appears to be the range sensor actually performing a range calibration or range measurement -with similar issues to limitation C). In limitation G), “according to” lacks sufficient detail, and it is unclear how the second downrange estimate is more accurate than the first. Limitation H) does not appear to be written as a limitation, as “according to” is not an active method step. Furthermore, “presenting”, “navigating” and “adjusting” are not active method steps, either. This would appear to be a conditional clause where one or more of three actions are taken dependent upon if a condition meets a certain number or threshold – and should be amended to be clearly written as so. These issues apply mutatis mutandis to Claim 11, as well.
In Claim 2, this claim would appear necessary to be part of Claim 1. Furthermore, Claim 2 fails to specify what “if an agreement” means in clearly defined terminology. While a “threshold” is mentioned, the claim fails to mention any specifics on what value is being determined as the threshold, how the comparison is done, and what the device does if the alternative condition is met. These issues apply mutatis mutandis to Claim 12, as well.
In Claim 4, the claim cites a “weapon” but fails to limit or specify what a weapon is. Pencils, toothbrushes, butter knives, magazines, frying pans can be used as weapons. It appears, from the specification in paragraph [0104], that the only weapon described is a firearm (rifle), and the claim should be amended to limit its scope to that specific type of weapon, since it appears to be the only “weapon” with support in the specification. These issues apply mutatis mutandis to Claim 14, as well.
In Claim 10, the claim cites a “photogrammetric bundle-adjustment process” – which is unclear and lacks sufficient detail. These issues apply mutatis mutandis to Claim 20, as well.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 fail to remedy the issues present in independent claims 1 and 11, and thus, are summarily rejected. Correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the scope of independent Claims 1 and 11 appear to have a combination of limitations in steps E) through H) that would be allowable, if re-written to correct each and every one of the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) in Paragraphs 3-7 above, and subsequent corrections to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES R HULKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7553. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 9am-6pm, F: 10am-2pm.
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, Robert Hodge can be reached at 5712722097. 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.
JAMES R. HULKA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3645
/JAMES R HULKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights