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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/10/2025. Claims 1-3, 6-22 are presented for examination. Independent claims 1, 19, 20 were amended and dependent claims 7, 12 were amended. Claims 4-5 were cancelled. Claims 21-22 were newly added.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-22 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 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “(i) the first sensing data group in which a correspondence relationship is not established between a site of the first structure corresponding to each data included in the first sensing data group and a site of the second structure corresponding to the second sensing data regarding the second structure” in lines 9-12. In the Applicant’s remarks filed on 12/10/2025, the Applicant notes that the support for claim 1’s amendment can be found within Figures 7-8 and 10 and their corresponding descriptions. However after reviewing the instant application’s specification, the Examiner did not find support for those claim amendments. Specifically, the application’s specification does not recite any language relating to the claimed “correspondence relationship” being “not established”. Furthermore, the Applicant argues, in pages 11-12 of the Applicant’s remarks, that establishing correspondence corresponds to an alignment between two structures. Similarly, there is no support for not using an alignment step in the application’s specification.
Claims 2, 3, 6-18, 21, 22 depend on at least claim 1. Therefore, the claims 2, 3, 6-18, 21, 22 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but in different forms. Therefore, the claims 19 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
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 1-3, 6-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “(i) the first sensing data group in which a correspondence relationship is not established between a site of the first structure corresponding to each data included in the first sensing data group and a site of the second structure corresponding to the second sensing data regarding the second structure” in lines 9-12. It is unclear to the Examiner how a correspondence relationship is not established when a relation between two structures is initially made such that common sites of the two structures are compared to each other. More specifically, it is unclear how a correspondence relationship is not established between two structures when there are common sites between the two structures.
Claims 2, 3, 6-18, 21, 22 depend on at least claim 1. Therefore, the claims 2, 3, 6-18, 21, 22 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Claims 19 and 20 recite similar limitations as claim 1 but in different forms. Therefore, the claims 19 and 20 are rejected for at least the same reason as claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612