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 to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment of June 9, 2026, which amendment has been ENTERED.
Due to the amendment of June 9, 2026 and due to the remarks with that amendment claims 1-14 and 19 are ALLOWABLE.
Supplementary to remarks in section 10 of the non-final rejection of March 9, 2026, it is stated that each of Wen et al (‘362), Kim et al (‘103), and Davis et al (‘121) has been cited merely to show the state of the related prior art. None of these references either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 1 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed method as set forth in independent claim 1 that is particularly characterized, at least, by the final two method steps of the claim as set forth on lines 7-17 of the claim (i.e., “the first device measures an echo signal …”) taken in the overall context of independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 2-14 is allowable, at least, in that it depends from allowable, independent claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 19 as newly-amended, none of the prior art of record either taken alone or taken in any possible combination would anticipate or would tend to render obvious Applicant’s claimed apparatus as set forth in independent claim 19 that is particularly characterized, at least, by the final two sections of the claim as set forth on lines 9-19 of the claim (i.e., “the first device measures an echo signal …”) taken in the overall context of independent claim 19.
It is noted that Applicant has argued in the fourth, full paragraph on page 22 of the amendment that, “the ‘third device’ is used to distinguish from the ‘first device’ in claim 1 and the ‘second device’ in claim 1, and thus no amendment to the expression ‘third device’ is necessary.”
The text of 37 CFR 1.75(c) is as follows:
“(c) One or more claims may be presented in dependent form, referring back to and further limiting another claim or claims in the same application. Any dependent claim which refers to more than one other claim ("multiple dependent claim") shall refer to such other claims in the alternative only. A multiple dependent claim shall not serve as a basis for any other multiple dependent claim. For fee calculation purposes under § 1.16, a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made therein. For fee calculation purposes also, any claim depending from a multiple dependent claim will be considered to be that number of claims to which direct reference is made in that multiple dependent claim. In addition to the other filing fees, any original application which is filed with, or is amended to include, multiple dependent claims must have paid therein the fee set forth in § 1.16(j). Claims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. A multiple dependent claim shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of each of the particular claims in relation to which it is being considered. (Bold added).
In response to this point of Applicant, claim 15 could only include the limitations of other claims if it were a dependent claim. Since claim 15 does not depend from independent claim 1, it does not include any limitations of claim 1. Since claim 15 is not in the chain of dependency of claim 1, nothing in claim 15 would have reference to anything in claim 1. Further, logically, from that fact, there would be no reason in the context of claim 15 to distinguish from claim 1. Thus, the rejection of claims 15-18 and 20 under 35 USC 112(b) due to a lack of clarity of “third device” as set forth in the previous office action is hereby maintained.
Rejection as Maintained
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 15-18 and 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.
Overall, independent claim 15 is indefinite and unclear as to what "third device" (line 3) means in context in that there is no earlier recitation of "first device" or of a "second device." It is suggested that, perhaps, claim 15 was intended to be a dependent claim. Further, the uses of "third device" in each of dependent claims 16-18 and 20 are indefinite and unclear for substantially the same reason as for independent claim 15.
Finality of this Office Action
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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