DETAILED FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments/Response
This office action is in response to the amendment of May 7, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 15-20 are NEWLY-ADDED.
The amendment of May 7, 2026 and the remarks with the amendment have been carefully considered. Consequently, the rejections as set forth in the office action of February 23, 2026 have been OVERCOME.
Due to the significant amendments made to independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and, due to the addition of new claims 15-20, further examination of the claims was necessitated. New rejections are set forth below.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW).
Claim Interpretation
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 1-10, 13, and 15-20 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.
The claim language on lines 5-11 of claim 1 as it relates to the uses of “the return signal array” is unclear in context in that the claim language on line 2 of the claim now recites, “receiving data representing a return signal array.” That is to say, in claim 1, a “return signal” is no longer claimed as being received, so the claim steps in claim relating to “the return signal array” no longer make sense in context.
The claim language on lines 7-14 of claim 6 as it relates to the uses of “the return signal array” is unclear in context in that the claim language on line 4 of the claim now recites, “receive data representing a return signal array.” That is to say, in claim 6, a “return signal” is no longer claimed as being received, so the claim limitations relating to “the return signal array” no longer make sense in context.
On line 2 of dependent claim 2, the phrase, “blind zone where a transmit pulse is partially emitted” is indefinite and unclear in context in that the phrase could mean: (1) an entire transmit pulse is emitted, but only part of that pulse is emitted into the blind zone; or, (2) only a part of a pulse is emitted. Substantially the same remarks apply to the corresponding claim language on line 2 of dependent claim 7, and, to the corresponding claim language on lines 4-5 of dependent claim 13.
On line 2 of dependent claim 2, the phrase, “blind zone where a transmit pulse is partially emitted” is indefinite and unclear in context due to the use of the word “where” in that the phrase could mean: (1) the action of emitting the transmit pulse occurs within the blind zone; or, (2) the emitted transmit pulse is sent into the blind zone. Substantially the same remarks apply to the corresponding claim language on line 2 of dependent claim 7, and, to the corresponding claim language on lines 4-5 of dependent claim 13.
Each of dependent claims 2-5 and 15-20 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 7-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 6.
Potentially-Allowable Claims
Claims 1 and 6 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.
Claims 2-4, 7-10, and 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Claims
Claims 11, 12, and 14 are allowable over the prior art of record.
In independent claim 11 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record discloses in combination the claimed features recited on lines 4-14 of the claim (i.e., “generating a modified convolution filter … using the filtered signal output”), nor would this claimed combination of features have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art.
Finality of this Office Action
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights