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 1-20 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 1, recites a functional outcome:
“converting spectral characteristic”,
“setting a training spectral characteristic corresponding to the sensor identifier in the converting spectral characteristic”.
But does not define any particular analysis steps of how the “the spectral characteristics” is converted, “the training spectral characteristics” is set corresponding to the sensor identifier . Thus, the claim is covering every conceivable steps for achieving the stated function which may exceed the scope of what the specification actually discloses. The scope of the claim encompasses every analysis step known now and would be known in the future for implementing the functions of “converting spectral characteristic” and , “setting a training spectral characteristic corresponding to the sensor identifier”. Therefore, the metes, bounds and scope of the claim and scope of protection are not defined and the claim is indefinite. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the specification into the claims. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969) and In re Winkhaus, 527 F.2d 637, 188 USPQ 129 (CCPA 1975), which discuss the premise that one cannot rely on the specification to impart limitations to the claim that are not recited in the claim and therefore, the claim is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection for their common features.
Claim 1 recites “converting spectral characteristic”, line 10. It is unclear “spectral characteristic” is converted to what?. The metes bounds and scope of the claim are not determined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection for their common features.
Claim 1 recites “ training for information on optics” line 7, lacks clarity as optics is not defined properly by their features.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection for their common features.
Claim 1 recites “outputting optical information to a latter part” lines 16-17, it is unclear what latter part is? These is no parts recited in the claim. The metes bounds and scope of the claim are not determined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection for their common features.
Claim 1, alternatively uses verbs and refers to the verbs as nouns, for example in “ converting spectral characteristic” on lines 10, “converting “ is a transitive verb , while in “setting spectral characteristic “in the converting spectral characteristic” is a noun. Furthermore the specification as filed refers to steps implement by Parts or units of a processor (see Fig 3). The metes bounds and scope of the claim are not determined and the claim is indefinite.
As to claims 2-20 refer to claim 1 rejection for their common features.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if amended to overcome the above rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR ANWAR AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-7413. The examiner can normally be reached flex.
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, Edward Urban can be reached at (571)272-7899. 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.
/SAMIR A AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights