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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 8-10 have been amended. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been carefully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicants amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “an additional object” in lines 8-9 of the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 12 of the claim. Clam 1 recites the limitation, “the additional object” in line 14 of the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in lines 19-20 of the claim. Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the additional object” in lines 20-21. These limitations are inconsistent and should be amended for consistency, i.e., the limitation at line 12 of the claim should recite, “the additional object” and the limitation at lines 19-20 should recite, “the additional object” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “an additional object” in line 5 of the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 8 of the claim. Clam 8 recites the limitation, “the additional object” in line 11 of the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 15 of the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 16. Claim 8 also recites the limitation, “the additional object” at the end of line 16 of the claim. These limitations are inconsistent and should be amended for consistency, i.e., the limitation at line 8 of the claim should recite, “the additional object,” the limitation at line 15 should recite, “the additional object” and the limitation at line 16 should recite, “the additional object” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the real field included in view of the detection range of the sensor” in line 17 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “the real field of view of the detection range included in the sensor” or “the real field of view included in the detection range of the sensor” for consistency with the corresponding limitations in the same claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the positions” in line 16 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “the position” if the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 16 is amended to recite “the additional object.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “an additional object” in line 6 of the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 9 of the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the additional object” in line 12 of the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 16 of the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 17 of the claim. Claim 9 also recites the limitation, “the additional object” at the end of line 17 of the claim. These limitations are inconsistent and should be amended for consistency, i.e., the limitation at line 9 of the claim should recite, “the additional object,” the limitation at line 16 of the claim should recite, “the additional object” and the limitation at line 17 should recite, “the additional object” for consistency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the real field included in view of the detection range of the sensor” in line 18 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “the real field of view of the detection range included in the sensor” or “the real field of view included in the detection range of the sensor” for consistency with the corresponding limitations in the same claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the positions” in line 17 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “the position” if the limitation, “the additional objects” in line 17 is amended to recite “the additional object.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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 the limitation "a user" in line 9 of the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 12 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 9 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 9 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 12 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a user" in line 9 of the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 20 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 9 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 20 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 20 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a user" in line 5 of the claim. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 5 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 9 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 9 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a user" in line 5 of the claim. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 16 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 5 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 16 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 16 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a user" in line 6 of the claim. Claim 9 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 10 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 6 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 10 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 10 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a user" in line 6 of the claim. Claim 9 also recites the limitation “a user” in line 17 of the claim. It is unclear if “a user” recited in line 6 of the claim is the same or different user as recited in line 17 of the claim. If they are the same user, line 17 of the claim should recite, “the user.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the similarity calculation unit" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detection information acquisition unit" in lines 12-13 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the similarity calculation unit" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the detection information acquisition unit" in lines 13-14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 15-17 of the claim. This limitation is unclear as it is missing the additional criteria for the similarities to be reduced and should recite, i.e., “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations and the at least one of the pattern or posture are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value.” See at least paragraphs [0017] of the instant specification.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 11-14 of the claim. This limitation is unclear as it is missing the additional criteria for the similarities to be reduced and should recite, i.e., “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by a detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations and the at least one of the pattern or posture are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value.” See at least paragraphs [0017] of the instant specification.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 12-15 of the claim. This limitation is unclear as it is missing the additional criteria for the similarities to be reduced and should recite, i.e., “the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by a detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations and the at least one of the pattern or posture are reduced to be lower than a predetermined value.” See at least paragraphs [0017] of the instant specification.
Claims 2-7 and 10 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if the objections and the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections were overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY MANGIALASCHI whose telephone number is (571)270-5189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM TO 6:00PM.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/TRACY MANGIALASCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights