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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 and 11-16 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.
Claim limitation “a step of obtaining a three-dimensional model (19) of the log (1)” 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. The claim limitation fails to claim specific structural limitations required to achieve the obtaining step. The specification states, “One embodiment of the method according to the present invention first of all comprises a step of performing a computed tomography scanning of the log 1 to obtain a three-dimensional model of the log 1.” [0039]. Further, the specification states, “the step of obtaining the three-dimensional model of the log 1 is implemented not by tomography scanning, but by another measurement system that allows information to be obtained about the features of the structure of the log and/or about the defects of the log. One example of an alternative measurement system is a camera vision system which determines only the outer shape of the log 1 (where the features are the outer shape itself and the defects may include deviations from a circular cross-section) and/or which also sees other defects such as cracks (the extent of those cracks in the log can be estimated).” [0041]. It is unclear what structure is actually performing the obtaining step in the claimed invention in view of the specification. Neither one of the structural details is present in the claim limitation. Without these structural parameters, the claim encompasses any conceivable method of obtaining the three-dimensional model which raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
Claim limitation “a step of computer-processing of the three-dimensional model (19) of the log (1) to determine the cutting pattern” 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. The claim limitation fails to claim specific structural limitations required to achieve the computer-processing step. The specification fails to explicitly disclose the structural features that implement the computer-processing step. Without these structural parameters, the claim encompasses any conceivable method of computer-processing the three-dimensional log which raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
Claim limitation “a step of acquiring a set of three-dimensional models (19) of a plurality of logs (1)” 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. The claim limitation fails to claim specific structural limitations required to achieve the acquiring step. The specification fails to explicitly disclose the structural features that implement the acquiring step. Without these structural parameters, the claim encompasses any conceivable method of acquiring a set of three-dimensional models which raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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 limitation, “a step of generating training data comprising, for each one of said plurality of logs (1)”, 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. The claim limitation fails to claim specific structural limitations required to achieve the generating step. The specification fails to explicitly disclose the structural features that implement the generating step. Without these structural parameters, the claim encompasses any conceivable method of generating training data which raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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 limitation, “a sub-step of processing the three-dimensional model (19) of the log (1) to compute the respective defect maps (31) and shape maps (32)”, 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. The claim limitation fails to claim specific structural limitations required to achieve the processing sub-step. The specification fails to explicitly disclose the structural features that implement the processing sub-step. Without these structural parameters, the claim encompasses any conceivable method of processing the three-dimensional model which raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
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.
Regarding claims 2-6 and 12-15, the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of their respective independent claims and thus are similarly rejected.
Claim 1 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “a third sub-step that optimises the objective function” which is unclear and indefinite. One of ordinary skill in the art would not understand what is occurring through the optimization of the function. The claim limitation raises indefinite metes and bounds of the invention unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-6 and 12-16 would be allowable if rewritten in 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kaitlin A Retallick whose telephone number is (571)270-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at (571) 272-7331. 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.
/KAITLIN A RETALLICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights