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 .
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 & 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6/4/2026.
The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6/4/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 3 is 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 particular, Claim 3 recites “wherein a numerical range in which the match rate is capable of being taken is divided into a plurality of match rate levels by one or a plurality of division threshold values”; however, Claim 1 now recites “at least one threshold value.” Therefore, it is unclear whether the “one or a plurality of threshold values” is the same “at least one threshold value” of Claim 1 or if it is an independent limitation.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein a numerical range in which the match rate is capable of being taken is divided into a plurality of match rate levels by the at least one division threshold value.”
Furthermore, while the limitation “a plurality of match rate levels” is technically definite, it is suggested that Applicant amend the limitation for clarity. For example, “wherein the match rate level is divided into a plurality of match rate levels according to the at least division threshold value, each match rate level associated with a numerical range in which the match rate is capable of being take,”
It should be noted that the above suggestions are only for assisting Applicant in their decision on how to proceed. They are in no way to preclude consideration of alternative solutions submitted by Applicant. The responsibility for determining the text of the application and in particular for defining the subject-matter for which protection is sought remains with Applicant.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1 & 4-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
While Patil teaches of scan plane accuracy user score 210 is divided into a plurality of levels, e.g. 1-5, as detailed in the previous Action, Patil does not explicitly disclose or suggest of a corresponding threshold.
Previously cited references of Aase, Lu et al., Harrison et al., and Hong et al. teaches of various scoring metrics to score the scan quality, none of them teach of an examiner level let alone a further division or corresponding threshold.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights