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.
Claims 1-18 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.
The phrase “carry out a calibration of a distance determination of the radio circuit by determining calibration parameters” (claim 1, lines 6-7), but the metes and bounds of this language are unclear. That is, what distance is being calibrated using of the radio circuit? And, what does it mean by reciting “carry out a calibration….determining calibration parameters”? The applicant disclose that the calibration parameters can be correction values to correct erroneous distance readings (paragraph 0035), therefore, it is not clear what distance can be determined by calibration.
Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar rationale.
Claims 2-11 and 13-18 are also rejected because claims are depended on rejected claims.
Additional Remarks
The lack of an art rejection with this Office action is not an indication of allowable subject matter (i.e., even though the claims 1 and 12 are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 as discussed above). The disclosure/claimed language is such that it is impractical to conduct a reasonable search of the prior art by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fox et al. (US 11635312) teaches a system for calibrating a device, and De Vegt et al. (US 2022/0322085) teaches a method for obtaining a calibration distance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEUNG H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2401. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/SEUNG H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights