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
Claims 5, 14-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/13/2026. Therefore, the restriction is made final herein.
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 1-4, 6-13, 18-20 are considered eligible subject matter. Even if the claims were considered an abstract idea, the claim contains limitations that provide evidence of “significantly more”, because the judicial exception is applied by a particular machine, given the claimed means and units, and the device being capable of television broadcasting a real or virtual image.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 appears to contain a clerical error. Claim 1 recites “unites” in line 87, where the examiner believes the applicant intends to claim “units”. Furthermore, claim 1 recites a method comprising “the steps” of:, but only claims one step. Appropriate correction is required.
It is noted that, for claim 6, reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims are enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. However, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This includes, in claim 1 and 6, “reception means”, “storage means”, “displaying or projecting means”, “listening means”, “processing means”, “display means”, “sound listening means”, “digital recording means”, “power supply internal means”, “remote reception means”, “capture means”, “Broadcasting means”, “reception means”, “temporary storage means”, “displaying and/ or listening means”, “recording and/or storage means” “an internal electric power supply means”, “electric power supply means”, “external charging means”, “magnetic field means”, “piezoelectric means”, “remoter reception means”, “means for detecting the exact position, “”reception means”, “storage means”.
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 1,2-4, 6-13 and 18-20 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 "the device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the word “it”, “its”, or “them” in lines 8, 15, 25, 38, 39, 43, 50, 89,91, 101. It is unclear as to what “it”/ “them” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites “the real object” in line 10. It is unclear as to which real object the applicant is referring to, because multiple “real object”s are previously claimed.
Regarding claim 1, items in parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). If the applicant intends for the items to be interpreted, please provide language, i.e. “wherein the real object to be detected is one of: human beings, animals…”. Items in parentheses are listed throughout the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the real entity unit” in line 15. It is unclear as to which real entity unit the applicant is referring to, because multiple “real entity unit”s are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the device" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the type" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the object device" in line 30. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “can be”/ “can” or “may be” in several locations in the claim, for example in lines 31, 32, 57, 87, 96. It is unclear as to if that which follows “can be”/ “may be” is limiting because “can be”/ “may be” is not a positive recitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the power supply means" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the electric power supply means " in line 31-32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the object " in line 35. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the real image” and “the virtual image” in line 36. It is unclear as to which real image/ virtual image the applicant is referring to, because multiple “real image”s and “virtual image”s are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the confidentiality" in lines 39-40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the real visual image" in line 40. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the exact position", the orientation”, “the direction, and “the speed” in lines 41-42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the position" in line 49. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The applicant may be referring to previously claimed “the exact position”?
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information relating to the position" in line 53. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the detection modules” in line 67. It is unclear as to which detection modules the applicant is referring to, because multiple “detection modules” are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the reception" in line 71. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the real or virtual images” in line 71. It is unclear as to which real or virtual images the applicant is referring to, since many are previously claimed. Later references to “the real or virtual image” is also unclear as to which images the applicant is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound recordings" in line 73. It is unclear as to which sound recordings the applicant is referring to, because multiple “sound recordings” are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the information associated with the identity” in line 72. It is unclear as to which information associated with the identity the applicant is referring to, because multiple “information associated with the identity”s are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the temporary storage" in line 75. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the detection module" in line 83. It is unclear as to which detection module the applicant is referring to, because “detection modules” are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "various complementary information attributes" in line 83. It is unclear as to which various complementary information attributes the applicant is referring to, because multiple “various complementary information attribute”s are previously claimed.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information of its identification" in lines 89-90. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the display means" in line 91. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the control and guidance systems" in lines 94-95. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound listening means" in line 101. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the information on the position, orientation of the object, direction of motion of the object and speed of motion of the object" in 103-104. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sound information" in line 104-105. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the purpose of controlling" in line 105. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "real entity" in line 107. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the broadcasting” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the entity to be detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and “the identity of the entity”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the broadcasting” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the entity to be detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and “the identity of the entity”.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation “the broadcasting” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the entity to be detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation " the identity of the entity" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 18 and 19 recite the limitation “the broadcasting” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the entity to be detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and “the identity of the entity”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the spatially delimitation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the entity to be detected" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity" in lines 2-3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and “the identity of the entity”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the functioning" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the AI" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the entity" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the word “it”, “its” or “them” in line 13, 19, 38, 152. It is unclear as to what “it”/ “them” is referring to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the images" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the temporary storage" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the rolling or flying machines" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the machines autonomous" in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, items in parentheses render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). If the applicant intends for the items to be interpreted, please provide language, i.e. “wherein the real object to be detected is one of: human beings, animals…”. Items in parentheses are listed throughout the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the image" in line 38. It is unclear as to which image the applicant is referring to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the real object" in line 38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the same limitations as claim 1 in lines 47-149. Therefore, the same 112 issues exist in claim 6 that are recited above. Please review the above rejections for claim 1 to correct any corresponding 112 issues in claim 6. Furthermore claim 6 recites many parts to the detecting device, and the method of lines 47-149 repeats many of the parts, (i.e.. capture means). If the applicant intends for the parts to correspond in lines 1-46 and 47-149, the applicant should refer back to the previously claimed means/ devices/ parts. Please carefully review lines 47-149 for issues regarding referring to items that are previously claimed multiple times.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the method” in line 150. It is unclear as to which method the applicant is referring to.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "these images" in line 155. It is unclear as to which images the applicant is referring to
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the detection module" in line 160. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the detectable electronic box" in line 162. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the real entity box" in line 162. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the AI" in line 166. It is unclear if the applicant is referring to previously claimed “AI” or “artificial intelligence”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the automatically training device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20170032402 (Patsiokas et al).
Regarding claim 1, Patsiokas et al discloses a method (page 5, paragraph 49) for detection and identification of a living or not living entity, the method comprising the steps of: transforming a real object to be detected, the real object to be detected being fixed or mobile, inert or living, i.e. a vendor or business (page 5, paragraph 60) into another real object detectable by association with the real object to be detected, i.e. an advertisement or message (page 5, paragraph 60), the real object to be detected of an electronic unit, called a real entity unit, i.e. the electronic unit of the business that transmits the message of fig. 4, page 5, paragraph 60, or fig. 4, item 405, wherein the device called real object makes it possible to television-broadcast, in a unidirectional manner and without dialogue and in loops, a real or virtual image or an avatar of a type of the real object to be detected and information associated with an identity of the real object to be detected, since item 405 and that which sets the advertisements of the businesses of fig. 4, page 5, paragraph 60 makes it possible to broadcast the images to nearby consumers (page 5, paragraph 60). It is noted that the rest of claim 1 is part of the “or” statement, and thus, because the limitations above are disclosed, that which is after the “or” statement is not required.
Regarding claim 2, Patsiokas et al discloses the environment in which the real entity to be detected and the detection module is located or evolves, is an air vehicle (airplanes and others), a rolling land vehicle, a maritime vehicle, a building (fig. 4, item 405, 425, 440).
Regarding claim 3, Patsiokas et al discloses the broadcasting of a real or virtual image, i.e. the advertisement (page 5, paragraph 60) or an avatar of the entity to be detected and the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity is carried out over distances defined the spatially delimitation of the environment, the distances shown in fig. 4.
Regarding claim 4, Patsiokas et al discloses the broadcasting of a real or virtual image, i.e. the advertisement (page 5, paragraph 60) or an avatar of the entity to be detected and the information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity is carried out over distances ranging from 1 meter to 500 meters (fig. 4, any of the broadcasting that occurs in the image), and further broadcasting occurs at 300 meters in page 9, paragraph 88.
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 3. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 3 are equally applicable to claim 18. Claim 18 distinguishes from claim3 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 4. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 4 are equally applicable to claims 19 and 20. Claims 19 and 20 distinguish from claim 4 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Patsiokas et al in view of U.S. Patent No 10580283 (Al-Yimi).
Regarding claim 10, Patsiokas et al discloses all of the claimed elements as set forth above and incorporated herein by reference.
Patsiokas et al does not disclose expressly the broadcasting of a real or virtual image or an avatar of the entity to be detected and information or attributes associated with the identity of the entity is made by at least one of 4G broadcast, 5G broadcast, and 6G broadcast.
Al- Yimi discloses the broadcasting of a real or virtual image, a video, (col. 4, lines 30-34) is made by at least one of 4G broadcast, 5G broadcast, and 6G broadcast (col. 4, lines 28-30).
Patsiokas et al and Al-Yimi are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. communications.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to communicate over a 4G/ 5G network.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a more user-friendly system by using established communication networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the method of Patsiokas et al with communication networks of Al-Yimi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10. Thus, the arguments analogous to that presented above for claim 10 are equally applicable to claim 11. Claim 11 distinguishes from claim 10 only in that they have different dependencies, both of which have been previously rejected. Therefore, prior art applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
It is not entirely clear what is being claimed in claim 6 because of the numerous 112 issues. However, there is potential in the claim containing allowable subject matter, regarding the detecting device comprising all the claimed parts, and the claimed method for detection and identification of the claimed entity comprising the claimed step of transforming, and the steps, in order 1 through 5, step 1: taking or capturing images of the claimed real entity to be detected, step 2: transferring of the captured images from step 1 to AI for recognition and identification of the real entity to be detected, step 3, reception by the claimed detection module of the method, as described in the second clause the claimed method for detection and identification, of the real or virtual image or an avatar of the entity, corresponding to the previously claimed real or virtual image or avatar, emitted as claimed, step 4: transferring of the real image or virtual image or avatar by the detection module to the AI of step 2, and corresponding to previously claimed AI and artificial intelligence, and finally step 5: validation, correction or improvement of the identification of the real entity made by the AI in step 2. If claim 6 is rendered allowable, claims 7-9 and 12-13 would also be allowable, given they also are corrected for indefiniteness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kathleen Yuan Dulaney whose telephone number is (571)272-2902. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM-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, Emily Terrell can be reached at 5712703717. 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.
/KATHLEEN Y DULANEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666 7/1/2026
Prosecution Insights