DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 is(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.
Claim 1, 9, and 17 recites computer-implemented functions including, among other limitations, “combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals by a selective synchronization of the image generating devices and sensors.”
Applicant(s) is/are respectfully reminded, for computer-implemented functional claims, “examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 is(are) an originally-filed claim. However, originally-filed claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 does(do) not disclose how the 1, 9, and 17 themselves, or how the “combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals by a selective synchronization of the image generating devices and sensors” itself, is done and so does not provide the necessary written description support for pending claim 1, 9, and 17. Accord Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (indicating original claim language does not necessarily satisfy the written description requirement for the claimed subject matter). That is to say, originally-filed claim 1, 9, and 17 itself(themselves) does(do) not provide an algorithm that performs the function “combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals by a selective synchronization of the image generating devices and sensors” in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe an algorithm that performs the function “combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals by a selective synchronization of the image generating devices and sensors” in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter. For example, Applicant’s specification discloses “ combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals 23 by a selective synchronization of the image and sensor generating devices 22 and the respective electromagnetic radiation emitters 30, and by utilizing a known position, orientation and an operational response of the respective image and sensor generating devices 22.” Spec. [0019]. However, such disclosure in merely lists more details about the components in combining process, thus is not an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that performs the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter.
Applicant is also reminded, “if the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.” MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Therefore, because an algorithm for the function “combining the multiplicity of synchronized image and sensor signals by a selective synchronization of the image generating devices and sensors” is not disclosed in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor invented the claimed subject matter, and in accordance with MPEP § 2161.01, claim 1, 9, and 17 is rejected for lack of written description.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-23 recite limitations in claims 1, 9 and 17, thus are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
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, Randolph Vincent can be reached at 571 272 8243. 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.
JIANGENG SUN
Examiner
Art Unit 2661
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights