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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 18th, 2024 and August 5th, 2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 48 and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to or include computer programs which are non-statutory subject matter, per se. Note MPEP § 2106.03(I).
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, 3-4, 7, 9, 14, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 32, 35-39, 48, and 53 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites two conditional limitations connotated by the term “when” including the limitations:
when a mode parameter has a first value, the traversal of the beam is along a first traversal path on the region and is according to a first set of traversal conditions, and
when the mode parameter has a second value, the traversal of the beam is along a second traversal path on the region and is according to a second set of traversal conditions
The term “mode parameter” is not defined by the claim, nor is the interaction or role of the “mode parameter” with the active steps recited defined in the claim.
The term “first value” or “second value” are not defined in the claim.
The two conditional limitations are not required to be met in the actively recited steps in the body of the claim, therefore they are not required to be performed and are optional. Note MPEP § 2111.04.
Additionally, the amended language inserted in claim 1 recites:
“wherein the value of the mode parameter is configured field of view is changing or unchanging”
The syntax of this limitation is unintelligible. How may a value of a mode parameter be configured? A value is merely a value.
For these reasons, claim 1 is rendered indefinite. Dependent claims invoking the conditional limitations above are similarly indefinite since the conditions for meeting the “when” requirements are not set forth in claim 1. Dependent claims 3-4, 7, 9, 14, 18, 20-21, 24-26, 32, 35-39,48 and 53 are similar rendered indefinite by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 7, the claims are directed to the configuration of a mode parameter. As noted above, the contingent limitation of setting a mode parameter value is not set in the method of claim 1, therefore the mode parameter limitations are not invoked since the condition for the “when” clauses of claim 1 are not met in the steps of the claim. The limitations of claims 3-4 do not recite a discernable method step or modification of a positively recited method step in claim 1 and are therefore indefinite. Additionally, how can a mode parameter be configured to have a value. A parameter is just a value itself. This rationale is similarly applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is divided into two conditional “if” limitations where are not met by the preceding steps in claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite an additional step or act since all that is recited is optional. This is similarly applicable to claims 14 and 35-37. The absence of an additional step or act in these dependent claims therefore fails to further limit the method of claim 1, rendered each claim indefinite.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A VANORE whose telephone number is (571)272-2483. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 6 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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
DAVID A. VANORE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID A VANORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881