DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 4/27/2026.
Claims 1-3 are each currently amended, and remain pending.
The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites several additional limitations, but does not contain any line breaks or indentations. In order to aid in reading and comprehension, the claim should be presented with line breaks and indentations, to aid with reading and comprehension.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains a parenthetical identifying POS data contained within the file. These elements should be recited normally as claim limitations, rather than placed in parentheses. It is also suggested to provide line breaks and indentations, for the reason given above with regard to Clam 2.
Appropriate correction of these informalities 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in the first clause that the system is “used in various bathymetry LiDARs,” which is indefinite because it is unclear how many LiDARs are meant by “various,” and it is also unclear how being used in various bathymetry LiDARs is meant to be a limiting element of the claimed invention.
The second clause of Claim 1 recites “the lightweight and small bathymetry LiDAR.” This renders the claim indefinite, as these are descriptive terms and do not set forth a definite metes and bounds for the invention. This also lacks antecedent basis, as there is no previous recitation of this element in the claim. This clause also recites “various modules,” which is likewise indefinite as it is a descriptive term and does not set forth a definite bound for the modules. This clause also recites “a FMC interface,” which is indefinite because the claim does not describe what FMC is and its meaning would not be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The fifth clause of Claim 1 recites “the driving of the module is implemented by FPGA design.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis, as there is no previous recitation of the driving of the module. Further, it is unclear what is meant by “implemented by FPGA design,” as the claim does not explain how a FPGA specifically is used in the design, or what the design would specifically be with regard to a FPGA.
The sixth clause of Claim 1 recites “a PLL.” This is an indefinite limitation, as it is unclear from the claim what is meant by “PLL,” and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the scope of this limitation with certainty.
The eighth clause of Claim 1 recites “a POS system network interface in the present invention for POS data transmission,” and “a POS system.” These limitations are indefinite, because it is unclear what “POS” means, as the claim does not explain the acronym, and it does not appear to be ascertainable with certainty what this limitation recites. This clause also recites “a UDP protocol designed by FPGA,” which is indefinite because it is unclear how an integrated circuit is itself capable of designing a protocol. This does not appear to describe something which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
The final clause of Claim 1, as well as Claims 2 and 3, recite that a file conversion format is self-designed. This limitation is indefinite, because it is unclear what the particular metes and bounds are of a self-designed format. Simply reciting the elements of the file conversion format indicates a particular, bespoke design, therefore the qualitative descriptor “self-designed” is not clearly providing a limitation to the claim.
In order to bring the claims into compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for maximum clarity, it is suggested that the elements which each acronym stands for be spelled out in full at the first use of the acronym. Additionally, the qualitative descriptive words and clauses should be removed in order to overcome those rejections, and any remaining antecedent basis issues fixed.
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 KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
6/25/2026
Prosecution Insights