DETAILED ACTION
The present application has been accepted under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program and will be processed accordingly.
The amendments filed 11/25/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 11 appears to have been inadvertently canceled. The drawings filed 1/31/2025 include Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 on the same page. Replacement sheet filed 11/25/2025 provides Fig. 12 on its own page without Fig. 11. A new Replacement Sheet featuring Fig. 11 and Fig. 12 on the same page would correct this issue. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, and 6 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.
In claims 1 and 3, the limitation “transport part” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “transport part” is disclosed at paragraph [0032] of the specification as filed as an open-ended list, and thus it is not clear what structures do and do not correspond with “transport part”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim language invokes 35 USC § 112 (f) as “a transport part (200) configured to move the body part (100) according to driving of a motor of the body part (100)” meets the three-prong test laid out in MPEP § 2181, subsection I. “part” is a nonce term, which is modified by the functional language: “configured to move the body part (100) according to driving of a motor of the body part (100)”, and “a motor” is not sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. The specification indicates, at paragraph [0032], that wheels, caterpillars, etc. are required to move the body part (100). A motor alone is not sufficient to “move the body part (100) according to driving of a motor of the body part (100)”. Thus, this limitation is interpreted under 35 USC § 112(f) and is unclear under 35 USC § 112(b) as paragraph [0032] of the specification links “transport part” to an open-ended list, and thus it is not clear what structures do and do not correspond with “transport part”.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1, lines 22-28 recite:
optimize poses of nodes using a both end node information forming a loop, wherein the both end node comprises the past node and the generated node;
transform three-dimensional LiDAR scan data of the optimized node into location and direction data of an initial node and accumulate the transformed location and direction data;
The phrase “the optimized node” refers to a single optimized node, however a single optimized node has not been previously identified in the claim language. It appears “the optimized node” should be changed to --each optimized node--. Claim 4, at lines 17-18, requires a similar amendment.
Claim 3, lines 7-8 recite:
excludes the corresponding map point from an image of the map point.
It is not clear which map point “the map point” is referring to. Claims 1 and 3 recite various different individual map points preceded by an identifier (e.g., “matched map point”, “newly added map point”, etc.), but the claims do not identify a single map point as “the map point”. The claim language does not make it clear which of these map points “the map point” is referring to. Claim 6 is similarly unclear at the last line.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 4, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the drawing objections, claim objections, patent prosecution highway amendment requirements, and the addressed 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections, claim objections, patent prosecution highway amendment requirements, and the addressed 35 USC § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER D PATTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9:00-5:00 ET.
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, Khoi Tran can be reached at (571)272-6919. 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.
/SPENCER D PATTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights