DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Remarks
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 1-5, 7-10 and 12-14 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 reference to claim 1, claim 1 comprises the language “…a plurality of line-shaped second objects…the second object is disposed…superimpose the second object…” (see lines 9-11, 24-29) of which the Examiner deems is indefinite since the language of the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. In particular, the claim firstly introduces “a plurality of…second objects” but then fails to correctly refer back thereto in the plurality of objects since it incorrectly states “the second object.” In other words, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner points out that such language occurs multiple times throughout claim 1 and therefore should be thoroughly revised. Note, claims 2-5, 7-10 and 12-14 depend upon effected claim 1 and are therefore at least inherently included in this rejection however such claims may also need revision to recite proper antecedent basis.
In reference to claims 7 and 8, these claims are deemed indefinite since amendments to the claims which include the cancellation of claim 6 of which claims 7 and 8 are written as dependent from. The claims therefore fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim that which Applicant regards as the invention. Note, as per examination purposes the Examiner will assume that claims 7 and 8 should depend upon claim 1 however, proper revision to the claims is required.
Response to Arguments
The cancellation of claims 6 and 11 is noted.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 11/10/25, with respect to the 35 USC 102 & 103 rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102 & 103 rejection of these claims has been withdrawn since amendments overcome the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
The Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept displaying the first and second views with the specific superimposed first, second and third objects in their specific configuration and orientation specifically, divided into the areas satisfying predetermined conditions, as newly amended.
References Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hisashi et al. (DE 10109350)
Hisashi et al. discloses a support device for back parking a vehicle in a row at a stop position, the device comprising a display that draws line segments to aid in parking.
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 Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome, can be reached at (571) 272-2931.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop ____________
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
571-273-8300 (Central Fax)
See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
/Antonio A Caschera/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
1/13/26