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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because finger 5 and 6 are illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim recite the limitation “ applying Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) techniques to correct for interference” However, present specification does not disclose a method of applying OFDM the techniques to correct for interference. The Office submits that OFDM is modulation technique not a method of correcting interference. Additionally, present specification is silent on what kind of interference is correcting or any particular method of correcting the effects of the interference. Furthermore, the specification or the claim does not disclose where or which data signal is the OFDM technique is applied. Thus the specification does not sufficiently identify how the correcting the interference function is performed or the result is achieved. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 further recite the limitation “applying spatial and temporal filtering and averaging techniques to neutralize certain effects of noise”. However, present specification does not disclose a method of “applying spatial and temporal filtering and averaging techniques”. Examiner performed a keyword search in the specification for the term “Temporal filtering”, however it did not yield any hits. Further, present specification, is silent on any kind of interference is correcting method or any particular method of correcting the effects of the interference. Figures and the description of specification does not show any filtering operation. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Similar scenario exists in claim 2.
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 and 2 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 "the radio frequency signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first two pixels" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first row" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the corrected radio frequency signal" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the color intensity values" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the radio frequency signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “applying spatial and temporal filtering and averaging techniques to neutralize certain effects of noise;”. The term “certain effects of noise” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what are the certain effect of noise are. Further, the specification does not define what are the certain effects of noise. Therefore, is 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.
Similar scenario exists in claim 2.
Claim 1 recite the limitation “ utilizing a robust data channel to transport, and retain the integrity of, certain meta-data”. The term “certain meta-data” is vague and indefinite. It is not clear what are the certain meta-data are. Further, the specification does not define what are the certain meta-data are. Therefore, is 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.
Similar scenario exists in claim 2.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the corrected radio frequency signal" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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.
JAISON . JOSEPH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633