DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on September 16, 2013, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/066860, filed on June 21, 2022, and claims foreign priority to German Patent Application No. DE 10 2021 118 874.1, filed on July 21, 2021. An action on the merits follows.
Claims 1-17 have been amended and new claim 18 has been entered via preliminary amendment. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-18 are pending on the application.
Drawings
Figure(s) 1-5 contain portions that are missing or blurry, and therefore are not electronically reproducible. See 37 CFR 1.84(I). Replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 and 1.121(d) containing figures that are of sufficient quality to be electronically reproduced are required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “the interior of the loading area” in line 2 of the claim. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed “the interior” recited in line 2 of claim 1. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the claimed “the interior of the loading area” recited in in line 2 of claim 1 as “an interior of the loading area”.
Claim 1 further recites “3D data” in line 5 of the claim. However, the acronym 3D is undefined in the claims. To clarify that the acronym means three-dimensional, examiner suggests amending “3D data” in line 5 of claim 1 to “three-dimensional (3D) data”.
Appropriate correction 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.
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 1-18 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 the limitation “carrying out at least one further subsequent three-dimensional measurement by the sensor, wherein corresponding 3D data describing measurement points is stored as an associated second data set and also assigned a time stamp” in lines 11-14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “corresponding 3D data describing measurement points”, which “is stored as an associated second data set”, recited in lines 11-14 of the claim, includes embodiments corresponding to the claimed “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or if the claimed “corresponding 3D data describing measurement points”, which “is stored as an associated second data set”, recited in lines 11-14 of the claim, includes embodiments corresponding to the claimed “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 7-8 of the claim, or if the claimed “corresponding 3D data describing measurement points”, which “is stored as an associated second data set”, recited in lines 11-14 of the claim, includes embodiments corresponding to other “3D data describing measurement points” different from the claimed “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area” recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or the claimed “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 7-8 of the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “if the change in the 3D data compared to the preceding measurement” in line 5 of the claim. However, it is not clear which one of the claimed “changes in the 3D data” recited in line 21 of claim 1 the claimed “the change in the 3D data” recited in line 5 of claim 4 corresponds to, for example. Additionally, the claimed “the preceding measurement” has insufficient antecedent basis in the claim. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis makes the scope of the claim indeterminate.
Claim 4 further recites “the modified 3D data is subjected to the following conditional tests and assigned to corresponding circumstances…if the change… in response…” in lines 2-19 of the claim. However, examiner cannot clearly ascertain scope of steps further recited in the claim because the claimed “if” is a relative conditional term that implies an either/or selection in relation to a determination process step, which is not clearly defined within the claim limitation. The claim recites “in response”, which appears to be open ended because it is not clear if the claimed “response” is affirmative, or not, to the claimed “if” conditional term recited in the claim, for example.
Claim 4 further recites “generated for a visual representation… a current loading state, in particular for display on a monitor or display device” in lines 21-24 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “visual representation”, “a current loading state”, and “a monitor or display device” in lines 21-24 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “visual representation”, “a current loading state”, and “a monitor or display device” in lines 28-29 of claim 1, or if the claimed “visual representation”, “a current loading state”, and “a monitor or display device” in lines 21-24 of claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding other “visual representation”, “a current loading state”, and “a monitor or display device” different from the claimed “visual representation”, “a current loading state”, and “a monitor or display device” in lines 28-29 of claim 1, for example.
Therefore, based on above, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 5-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected claim 4.
Claim 16 recites the “monitoring a loading area…
at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor for repeated, three-dimensional measurement of the loading area; and
… 3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces
bordering the loading area and
3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” in lines 1-15 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area”, and “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 1-15 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area”, and “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 1-14 of claim 1, or if the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area”, and “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 1-15 of claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area”, and “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” different from the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data describing each measurement point of three-dimensional surfaces bordering the loading area”, and “3D data describing each measurement point of any objects or load parts located in the loading area” recited in lines 1-14 of claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 17 recites the “vehicle comprising:
a loading area, wherein the vehicle has at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor for three-dimensional measurement provided in an interior of a loading compartment; and
wherein the vehicle further comprises a computing or analysis unit with a programmed algorithm, with which the 3D data of each measurement point acquired by the sensor is stored in a first data set and processed according to the method as claimed in claim 1 and compared with at least one second data set” in lines 1-8 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “loading compartment” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “loading area” recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “loading compartment” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “loading compartment” different from the claimed “loading area” recited in line 2 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data of each measurement point acquired by the sensor”, “a first data set” and “at least one second data set” recited in lines 1-8 claim 17 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “a first data set” and “at least one second data set” recited in lines 1-14 claim 11, or if the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “3D data of each measurement point acquired by the sensor”, “a first data set” and “at least one second data set” recited in lines 1-8 claim 17 encompass embodiments corresponding to other “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “a first data set” and “at least one second data set” different from the claimed “loading area”, “at least one distance-measuring, depth-aware sensor”, “a first data set” and “at least one second data set” recited in lines 1-14 claim 11, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677