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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The applicant’s amendment’s remarks dated 06/17/2026 has been received, entered, and fully considered. Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-15 are amended. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 6-15 are currently pending and are under examination.
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 1-4 and 6-15 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 “…output an inaccuracy notification for distance information based on a position of the interfering object in image information” in lines 13-14. It is not clear from the recitation or from claim 1 how the ‘distance information’ and ‘image information’ are measured. Are the ‘distance information’ and ‘image information’ measured from a second detection unit and/or the second detection unit? It is not clear how the inaccuracy notification for distance information is based on a position of the interfering object in image information. Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correctio/clarification required.
In claim 2, it is not clear what the difference between the ‘distance information’ and the ‘distance measurement’. How can a distance information is obtained without the ‘distance measurement’ that follows according to claim 2? . Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correctio/clarification required.
Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-12 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 1 above solely based on their dependency from the rejected parent claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “…output an inaccuracy notification for distance information based on a position of the interfering object in image information” in lines 13-14. It is not clear from the recitation or from claim 1 how the ‘distance information’ and ‘image information’ are measured. Are the ‘distance information’ and ‘image information’ measured from a second detection unit and/or the second detection unit? It is not clear how the inaccuracy notification for distance information is based on a position of the interfering object in image information. . Therefore, the claim is considered vague and indefinite. Appropriate correctio/clarification required.
Dependent claims 14-15 are rejected under the same rational as the rejection of claim 13 above solely based on their dependency from the rejected parent claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/17/2026 have been 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.
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 ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
Assres H. Woldemaryam
Primary Examiner (Aeronautics and Astronautics)
Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights