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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on December 2, 2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of hyphens, missing conjunctions between clauses, and the use of multiple conjunctions “and/or.”
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because the limitations contain hyphens which makes the claims difficult to examine. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the claims limitations without the hyphens. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-13 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because the combination of conjunctions “and/or.” The combination of conjunctions “and/or,” makes the claim(s) unclear whether both terms are to be considered, or if only one of them is to be considered. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the terms in the alternative only. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-13 are also objected to based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 9 is objected to because the claim fails to recite a conjunction before the last clause in their respective claim. The Examiner reasonably believes the lack of the conjunction (i.e. “and”) is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 9 as follows:
“step 6: capturing the image of the positional patterns (6) in band R and the initial image in band V; and
step 7: computationally calibrating the internal positional coordinate system with the internal scenario coordinate system.”
Appropriate correction is required. Claim 10 is also objected to based on its respective dependency to claim 9.
Claim 10 is objected to because the claim fails to recite a conjunction before the last clause in their respective claim. The Examiner reasonably believes the lack of the conjunction (i.e. “and”) is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret claim 10 as follows:
“b) capturing the image of the fiducial markers (15) by the calibration camera (8), and calculating by the fiducial software module the exact position of the calibration camera (14) relative to the fiducial markers (15); and
c) moving the calibration camera (14) and/or the main screen (3) and observing the output of the fiducial software module until the exact preset position is achieved.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is are objected to because the preamble is unclear by either introducing a new independent claim or further depending from an existing independent claim. The Examiner reasonably believes this is a typographical error. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret the claim as follows:
“11. (currently amended) The training system (1) according to claim 2, wherein the computer (13), the projector (3b), the pattern projecting device (5), [[the]] a power unit (17), and at least one positional camera (8) [[and]] are housed in a portable case (16).”
Appropriate correction is required. Claims 12 and 13 are also objected to based on their respective dependency to claim 11.
Claim 12 is likewise objected to because the preamble is unclear by either introducing a new independent claim or further depending from an existing independent claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret claim 12 as follows:
“12. (currently amended) The training system according to claim 11, further comprises [[the]] a calibration camera (14) and at least one fiducial marker (15).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is likewise objected to because the preamble is unclear by either introducing a new independent claim or further depending from an existing independent claim. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will reasonably interpret claim 13 as follows:
“13. (currently amended) The training system according to claim 11, further comprises the portable inactive screen (3a) and at least one weapon replica (9a) with an additional triggering device (11).”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with indefinite recitations, inconsistent terminology, and generally confusing language that does not apprise the person of ordinary skill in the art what exactly it is that applicant intends to claim as their invention. Specifically, there are multiple instances within the claims wherein limitations are severely lacking uniformity and are repetitively inconsistent as to properly and precisely define the Applicant’s invention. For example, all of the reference numbers and reference characters make the claims difficult to examine. Listed below are further examples of such indefinite language. Due to the number and complexity of such instances, this list is merely representative and is not necessarily comprehensive. The Examiner respectfully requests the Applicant to amend the claims to clarify the language.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the positions and orientations.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said system.” The limitation “a training system,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said training system”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the positional patterns.” The limitation “at least two positional patterns,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional patterns”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the positional reflective screens.” The limitation “at least two positional reflective screens,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional reflective screens”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the band R.” The limitation “a band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one relevant object.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one relevant object”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the positional camera(s).” The limitation “at least one positional camera,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one positional ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the relevant objects.” The limitation “at least one relevant object” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one relevant ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the training scenario.” The limitation “an interactive training scenario,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the interactive training scenario”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the position(s) and orientation(s).” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the relevant object(s).” The limitation “at least one relevant object” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one relevant ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 2-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said effective screen (3a).” The limitation “an effective screen (3c)” is originally introduced in claim 3. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “said effective screen [[(3a)]] (3c)”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 3. Therefore, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation “the positional reflective screens.” The limitation “at least two positional reflective screens,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional reflective screens”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 6 recite the limitation “the positional patterns.” The limitation “at least two positional patterns,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional patterns”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the positional camera.” The limitation “at least one positional camera,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one positional ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “further comprises at least one additional input device (11), preferably a triggering device (11)…” The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a triggering device (11).” The limitation “at least one additional input device (11)” is originally introduced in claim 7. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 7. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the relevant object.” The limitation “at least one relevant object” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one relevant object”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the band V.” The limitation “a band of electromagnetic wavelengths of visual light - band V,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the band of electromagnetic wavelengths of visual light - band V”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 9-10 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 8.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the band R.” The limitation “a band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 9-10 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 8.
Claim 9 recites “a set up method” and “the training system (1) according to claim 8…” Per M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(p): A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “A system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages...to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. In re Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement... occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); < Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
In Applicant’s case, claim 9 is reciting “a set up method” and “the training system (1) according to claim 8…” Because Applicant is claiming two separate statutory classes together in a single claim, claim 9 is deemed indefinite. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on its respective dependency to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the positional reflective screens.” The limitation “at least two positional reflective screens,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional reflective screens”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the positional patterns.” The limitation “at least two positional patterns,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least two positional patterns”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the image.” The limitation “an initial image,” is originally introduced in claim 9. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the initial image”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the band R.” The limitation “a band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm-band R”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the band V.” The limitation “a band of electromagnetic wavelengths of visual light - band V,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the band of electromagnetic wavelengths of visual light - band V”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the internal positional coordinate system” and “the internal scenario coordinate system.” The limitations are not originally introduced in claim 1 or 9. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 10 is also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “step 3.” The limitation is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the step 3”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a) placing at least one fiducial marker (15), preferably two fiducial markers (15)...” The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “at least one fiducial marker (15), preferably two fiducial markers (15).” The limitation “at least one fiducial marker (15),” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the said effective screen (3c).” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1, 8, 9 or 10. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the image.” The limitation “an initial image,” is originally introduced in claim 9. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the initial image”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 9. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the fiducial markers (15).” The limitation “at least one fiducial marker (15),” is originally introduced in claim 10. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis; or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the calibration camera (8).” The limitation “at least one positional camera (8),” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one positional ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitations “the exact position,” “the output,” and “the exact preset position.” The limitations are not originally introduced in claim 1, 8, 9, or 10. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the power unit.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1, 2, or 11. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 12-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 11.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “at least one positional camera.” The limitation “at least one positional camera,” is originally introduced in claim 1. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the at least one positional camera”); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claims 12-13 are also rejected 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), based on their respective dependencies to claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitations “the calibration camera.” The limitation is not originally introduced in claim 1, 2, 11 or 12. As such, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the portable inactive screen (3a).” The limitation “an inactive screen (3a)” is originally introduced in claim 2. As such, the subsequent limitation is either (1) not following antecedent basis (i.e. “the ); or (2) is intended to be a new limitation which ambiguously conflicts with the previous limitation of claim 2. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 contain allowable subject matter. The closest prior art of record is U.S. PG Pub. 2021/0148675 to Stanley. However, Stanley does not explicitly teach: “a pattern projecting device (5) configured for projecting the positional patterns (6) onto the positional reflective screens (7), within a band of the EM wavelengths between 780 nm to 2500 nm -band R,” per claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-13 are allowable subject matter, if no other statutory rejections remain. In the present case, claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT P. BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313) 446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Peter Vasat, can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free).
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights