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 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.
Claims 1 and 9 recite “generating a four-dimensional space parameter curve”; it is unclear what is meant by “a four-dimensional space parameter curve”. Specifically, what the four dimensions represent and how the claimed curve is defined relative to the first parametric curve surface and the second parametric curve surface. The claims do not define whether a particular curve forms the four-dimensional space parameter curve.
In addition, claims 1 and 9 recite “intersecting boxes among the plurality of first curved surface boxes and the plurality of second curved surface boxes”; it is unclear what is meant by boxes intersecting. Specifically, whether the boxes are required to geometrically overlap or to overlap in parameter space.
In addition, claims 1 and 9 recite “a first determination condition” and “a second determination condition”; though the claims recite that the first and second determination conditions are “based on the tangent vector function model”; however, the claims do not identify what criteria of the tangent vector function model define the determination conditions. It is unclear what criteria are used to determine whether a target box is a first type box or a second type box.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are parametric curved surfaces based on various types of curved surface entities”. The claim does not clearly define the relationship between a parametric curved surface and a curved surface entity. Specifically, it is unclear whether each parametric curved surface is generated from one of the recited curved surface entities.
Claim 3 recites “inputting the target box into the tangent vector function model, outputting a target solution set…establishing the first determination condition and the second determination condition by using the target solution set related to the tangent vector function model”. The claim does not define what is meant by the target solution set being related to the tangent vector function model. Since the limitation already recites that the target solution set is output by the tangent vector function model, it is unclear what additional relationship is required by the phrase related to.
In addition, claim 3 recites “establishing the first determination condition and the second determination condition by using the target solution set”. The claim does not specify how the target solution set is used to establish the two conditions. In particular, the claim does not identify what parameters, relationship, calculation or criteria derived from the target solution set define the two conditions. Therefore, it is unclear what requirement must be satisfied for a condition to form the claimed the first and second determination conditions.
Claim 4 recites “a zero solution exists in an intersection of the first solution set and the second solution set, or a zero solution exists in an intersection of the third solution set and the fourth solution set; and the second determination condition is that: a zero solution exists at an intersection of the first solution set, the second solution set, the third solution set, and the fourth solution set”. The claim does not define what forms a zero solution. It is unclear if zero solution refers to a solution having a value of zero.
Claim 5 recites “a tangent point in a case that the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are tangent to a minimal loop”. The claim does not provide a definition for the term minimal loop. It is unclear what characteristic of a loop renders the loop minimal, for example, whether minimal refers to minimum length or minimal area.
In addition, claim 5 recites “wherein the zeroth type tracking point is a regular intersection point in a case that the first parametric curved surface or the second parametric curved surface is regularly intersected”. It is unclear what is meant by regularly intersected. The claim does not specify what entity intersects the respective parametric curved surface. Also, the claim does not define what forms an intersection being regular.
Claim 6 recites “subdividing the second type box, according to a number of solutions of the second discrimination function system”. The claim does not specify the relationship between the number of solutions of the second discrimination function system and the manner in which the second type box is subdivided. It is unclear what subdivision of the second type box is required for a given number of solutions.
Claim 6 recites “subdividing the first type box, according to a number of solutions of the first discrimination function system”. The claim does not specify the relationship between the number of solutions of the first discrimination function system and the manner in which the first type box is subdivided. It is unclear what subdivision of the first type box is required for a given number of solutions.
Claim 8 recites “determining the zeroth type box satisfying the third determination condition as an exclusion box”. The claim does not clearly explain how a zeroth type box satisfies the third determination condition or what relationship exists between an individual zeroth type box and the first, second, third, and forth solution sets. It is unclear how the third determination condition is applied to determine the claimed exclusion box.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a first generation module, a division module, a construction module, a marking module, a second generation module, and a display module in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “a tangent point in a case that the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are tangent to a point, a tangent point in a case that the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are tangent to a curve”. The examiner suggests a tangent point in a case that the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are tangent at a point, a tangent point in a case that the first parametric curved surface and the second parametric curved surface are tangent .
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights