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 .
Notes
The Examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s representative, but has received no response.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 08 December 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 8 and 9 have been amended. Claim 10 has been newly added. Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been carefully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the similarities calculated by the similarity calculation unit is greater than a predetermined value” in lines 10-11 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “the similarities calculated by the similarity calculation unit are greater than a predetermined value.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “so that the additional objects reduces the similarities” in lines 12-13 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that the additional objects reduce the similarities.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 14-15 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations that are lower than a predetermined value” or some other variation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation, “so that a user can put the additional object at the position of the real field of view” in lines 17-18 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that a user can put the additional objects at the position of the real field of view.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities is greater than a predetermined value” in lines 6-7 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities are greater than a predetermined value.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “so that the additional objects reduces the similarities” in line 9 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that the additional objects reduce the similarities.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 10-11 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations that are lower than a predetermined value” or some other variation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites the limitation, “so that a user can put the additional object at the position of the real field of view” in lines 13-14 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that a user can put the additional objects at the position of the real field of view.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities is greater than a predetermined value” in lines 7-8 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities are greater than a predetermined value.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “so that the additional objects reduces the similarities” in line 10 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that the additional objects reduce the similarities.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 11-12 of the claim. This limitation should recite, i.e., “information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations that are lower than a predetermined value” or some other variation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites the limitation, “so that a user can put the additional object at the position of the real field of view” in lines 14-15 of the claim. This limitation should recite, “so that a user can put the additional objects at the position of the real field of view.” 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 real field of view” in line 9 of the claim. Claim 1 also recites the limitation “a real field of view” in line 12 of the claim. It is unclear if “a real field of view” in line 9 of the claim is the same or different as “a real field of view” as recited in line 12 of the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "additional object determination unit configured to determine positions of additional objects to be added within a real field of view of a detection range of the sensor when the detection information is detected, if the similarities calculated by the similarity calculation unit is greater than a predetermined value, wherein the positions of additional objects to be added with a real field of view of the detection range of the sensor is determined so that the additional objects reduces the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 8-15 of the claim. The first portion of this limitation, as best understood, is interpreted to mean that as a sequence of frames are captured from a moving apparatus, objects appearing in the sequence of frames that are similar in position and orientation to objects appearing in previous frames are added to the real field of view for a user if the similarities are greater than a predetermined value. The above underlined portion of the limitation appears to be missing a portion of the limitation. Pieces of detection information are interpreted as frames or images. It is unclear what “objects reduce similarities between frames to be lower than a predetermined value” is referring to or what it means and therefore this limitation is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the postures" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the others" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the posture" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the posture " in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “a real field of view” in line 5 of the claim. Claim 8 also recites the limitation “a real field of view” in line 8 of the claim. It is unclear if “a real field of view” in line 5 of the claim is the same or different as “a real field of view” as recited in line 8 of the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the detection information acquisition unit " in lines 10-11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "determining positions of additional objects to be added within a real field of view of a detection range of the sensor when the detection information is detected, if the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities is greater than a predetermined value, wherein the positions of additional objects to be added with a real field of view of the detection range of the sensor is determined so that the additional objects reduces the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 5-11 of the claim. The first portion of this limitation, as best understood, is interpreted to mean that as a sequence of frames are captured from a moving apparatus, objects appearing in the sequence of frames that are similar in position and orientation to objects appearing in previous frames are added to the real field of view for a user if the similarities are greater than a predetermined value. The above underlined portion of the limitation appears to be missing a portion of the limitation. Pieces of detection information are interpreted as frames or images. It is unclear what “objects reduce similarities between frames to be lower than a predetermined value” is referring to or what it means and therefore this limitation is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a real field of view” in line 6 of the claim. Claim 9 also recites the limitation, “a real field of view” in line 9 of the claim. It is unclear if “a real field of view” in line 6 of the claim is the same or different as “a real field of view” as recited in line 9 of the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the detection information acquisition unit " in lines 11-12 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "determining positions of additional objects to be added within a real field of view of a detection range of the sensor when the detection information is detected, if the similarities calculated in the calculating of the similarities is greater than a predetermined value, wherein the positions of additional objects to be added with a real field of view of the detection range of the sensor is determined so that the additional objects reduces the similarities between the plurality of pieces of detection information acquired by the detection information acquisition unit at different positions or different orientations to be lower than a predetermined value” in lines 6-12 of the claim. The first portion of this limitation, as best understood, is interpreted to mean that as a sequence of frames are captured from a moving apparatus, objects appearing in the sequence of frames that are similar in position and orientation to objects appearing in previous frames are added to the real field of view for a user if the similarities are greater than a predetermined value. The above underlined portion of the limitation appears to be missing a portion of the limitation. Pieces of detection information are interpreted as frames or images. It is unclear what “objects reduce similarities between frames to be lower than a predetermined value” is referring to or what it means and therefore this limitation is indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the postures" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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