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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group Ib in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
IDS
The information disclosure statements received have been placed in the application file, and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. See the attached forms PTO-1449.
The numerous references and materials listed on the submitted 80 sheets of the IDS's make it difficult to determine whether or not any of the references, or parts of the references, are material to applicants' claimed invention. It is noted that applicants, in their several IDS submissions, do not indicate any particular reference or parts of references which they deem "material" to the patentability of the pending claims under 37 CFR 1.56(b).
Applicants are reminded of the standard set forth in the leading inequitable conduct case of J.P. Stevens & Co. v. Lex Tex Ltd., 747 F.2d 1553, 223 USPQ 1089 (Nov. 9, 1984), cert. denied, 106 S.Ct. 73 (1985): Where none of the prior art cited during prosecution teaches a key element of the claim(s) and where a reference known to the applicants does, the applicants should know that reference is material. Thus, if applicants are aware of any cited reference from among the information disclosure(s) of “a data-processing unit comprising one or more processors and configured to: generate a gaseous volume estimate associated with a current frame based at least in part on spectral data from the optical system, determine a plurality of edge pixels in the current frame based at least in part on a predetermined threshold, and generate an augmented gaseous volume estimate associated with the current frame based at least in part on the gaseous volume estimate and the plurality of edge pixels” that are "material," applicants should make that reference known to the examiner.
It is also noted that a "misrepresentation is material if it makes it impossible for the Patent Office fairly to assess [the patent] application against the prevailing statutory criteria." In re Multidistrict-Litig. Involving Forst Patent, 540 F.2d 601, 604, 191 USPQ 241, 243 (3d Cir. 1976); see also Monsanto Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 456 F.2d 592, 600, 172 USPQ 323, 329 (3d Cir.), ce.rt. denied, 40'7 U.S. 934, 174 USPQ 129 (1972). And, the submission of voluminous documents in the instant information disclosure statements (here, in excess of 80 documents) make it difficult, if not practically impossible, for the Patent Office to fairly assess applicants' application against the prevailing statutory criteria.
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.
Claim 189 and 192-195 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As to claim 189, claim recites “generate a gaseous volume estimate associated with a current frame based at least in part on spectral data”, “determine a plurality of edge pixels in the current frame based at least in part on a predetermined threshold” and “generate an augmented gaseous volume estimate associated with the current frame based at least in part on the gaseous volume estimate and the plurality of edge pixels”
Above recites limitations are claiming various functions being done at least in part based on various things. However, it is not clear what the applicant is trying to mean by at least in part. Furthermore, if they are the part, what is necessarily existing other parts for each limitation?
Furthermore, the specification of instant application is not clearly indicating what being other part than claimed spectral data, predetermined threshold or gaseous volume estimate and edge pixels. Ex. For the gaseous volume estimate, the specification only discloses calculation of absorption spectra based on different of two spectra, without disclosing any other data (other than spectral data) being involved.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the examination purposes, examiner will interpret the limitations without “at least in part”.
However, clarifications are required.
Dependent claims 192-195 are also rejected since they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 189 and 192-195 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
After completing a thorough search of independent claims 189, the closest reference to Duparre (US 20130088637 A1) discloses a sensor with focal plane with array of pixels for each optical channels wherein each optical channels optimized for different portion of spectrum, Hinnrichs et al. (US 20030086091 A1) teaches detection of presence of a particular gas in a volume of gas by multispectral image sensing, and
Hagene et al. (US 20060044562 A1) gas volume measurement by absorption spectroscopy thereof. But none of the searched prior arts alone or in combination discloses the claimed invention having the following recited limitations of independent claim 189.
As to claim 189, none of the prior art alone or in combination disclose or teach of a data-processing unit comprising one or more processors and configured to: generate a gaseous volume estimate associated with a current frame based at least in part on spectral data from the optical system, determine a plurality of edge pixels in the current frame based at least in part on a predetermined threshold, and generate an augmented gaseous volume estimate associated with the current frame based at least in part on the gaseous volume estimate and the plurality of edge pixels along with other limitations of claim 189.
Claims 192-195 are indicated as allowable due to their dependencies only.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNGHEE Y GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3211. The examiner can normally be reached on T-R, 8:00 am-4:00 pm and F 8 :00 to 2:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara Geisel can be reached on (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4211.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUNGHEE Y GRAY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2886