DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-15 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claims fail to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter. Applicant appears to be attempting to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims, which as noted above is improper.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 7, what is meant and encompasses a transaction is unclear and not readily understood. The metes and bound of the claims cannot be ascertained by one having ordinary skill in the art.
In addition, regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 7, it is also unclear of how and in what manner a transaction is determined and communicated. Is it based on the acquired SPR images, a location of the vehicle, a proximity of the vehicle to the external device, or something else?
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-15 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b) rejection must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0326372 discloses surface-penetrating radar (SPR) systems provide localization information for provision to a blockchain application. SPR can be used in environments, such as cities, where multipath or shadowing degrades GPS accuracy, or as an alternative to optical sensing approaches that cannot tolerate darkness or changing scene illumination or whose performance can be adversely affected by variations in weather conditions. In particular, SPR can be used to acquire scans containing surface and subsurface features as a vehicle traverses terrain, and the acquired data scans may be compared to reference scan data that was previously acquired within the same environment in order to localize vehicle position within the environment. If the reference scan data has been labeled with geographic location information, a vehicle's absolute location can thereby be determined.
US 2023/0358548 discloses a location system utilizes a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) antenna array both to detect surface and subsurface road features as well as broadcast transmissions, which are used to improve localization. For example, the GPR antenna may pick up an AM tor FM radio transmission or Wi-Fi signals, and may use these to calculate or refine the estimated position of the vehicle.
US 2020/0116881 discloses a system for near-surface geophysical subsurface imaging for detecting and characterizing subsurface heterogeneities comprises an instrument that outputs probing electromagnetic signals through a ground surface that interact and are affected by scattered signals of acoustic waves that travel through the ground surface and further senses vibrational modes of a subsurface below the ground surface; an imaging device that dynamically generates a time sequence of images of properties of the acoustic waves and maps elastic wave fields of the acoustic waves; and a processor that analyzes dynamic multi-wave data of the images to quantify spatial variations in the mechanical and viscoelastic properties of the subsurface.
US 10,901,079 discloses method and apparatus is a handheld ground penetrating radar which transmits radar pulses and acquires and processes received data for presentation on a display allowing a user to identify buried targets. Novel low cost approach to portable high-resolution light weight penetrating imaging. Method and apparatus for a portable penetrating radar incorporating a display depicting permittivity variation versus distance and time as the medium is scanned.
US 2019/0064345 discloses method and apparatus for communication of infrastructure information to a vehicle via ground penetrating radar. A vehicle comprising an antenna positioned to broadcast radio waves below the vehicle, a ground penetrating radar system, and an active safety module. The ground penetrating radar system determines types of reflectors and a spatial relationship between the reflectors based on radar cross-sections detected by the antenna, and generates a signature based on the shapes and the spatial relationship. The active safety module determines environmental data based on the signature, and autonomously control the vehicle based on the environmental data.
US 10,746,867 discloses a method for determining surface characteristics is disclosed. The method may include transmitting a surface penetrating radar (SPR) signal towards a surface from a SPR system. The method may also include receiving a response signal at the SPR system. The response signal may include, at least in part, a reflection of the SPR signal from a surface region associated with the surface. The method may further include measuring at least one of an intensity and a phase of the response signal. The method my additionally include determining, based at least in part on the at least one of the intensity and the phase of the response signal, a surface characteristic of the surface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights