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 .
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.
Claim 1-12 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 claims will be examined as best understood.
Claim 1 recites “for at least one specific point in the group of points which are presumed to belong to the object”. Not clear what is meant by “presumed”. Are the group of points acquired from the object? Therefore, is it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase/term are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “estimating a theoretical intensity value received by the lidar sensor after the specific light beam is emitted”. Not clear. If the intensity value is from a lidar sensor, how is it referred to as theoretical? Should this read as only an “intensity value?”
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the basis of the intensity error". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the sum". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites a similar limitation of “the theoretical intensity value” as the above claim 1 rejection and is similarly rejected.
Claim 7 recites “this surface”. Not clear which one of the surfaces is being referred to.
Claim 8 recites “the plurality of points is enriched by new acquisitions of the lidar sensor and the method is implemented iteratively from the enriched plurality of points.” Not clear what “enriched” means and appears to a translation error. Does enriched mean more points are scanned by the system?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-12 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The primary reason for allowance of the claims is the prior art does not teach or render obvious the limitations of the claimed method for estimating at least one dimension for a reflective surface, the method using a Lidar device to obtain a three-dimensional coordinate and selecting from these, points which represent an object, from this estimating a first and second dimension of the object, estimating the intensity values of the group of points, estimating a cross section of the light beam sent to the object surface, determining an intensity error associated with he points and correcting the value of the first dimension on the basis of the intensity error.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure cited on PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-4798. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 7-5.
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.
/V.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights