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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a module to start…”, “a module to circle…”, “a module to scan…”, “a module to obtain…”, “a module to judge…”, and “a module to mark…” of claim 11, “a unit to obtain a next…”, “a unit to judge…”, “a unit to obtain the images…”, “a unit to obtain the position…”, and “a unit to judge the node’s…” of claim 12, “a unit to obtain…”, “a unit to complete…”, “a unit to judge…”, and “a unit to record…” of claim 13, “a unit to judge…” of claim 14, “a unit to mark anchor…”, “a unit to mark a scale…”, and “a unit to circle…” of claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 the limitation "the coordinate of the current node" in line 14 and “the current node” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claims 2-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 1 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear what “the nodes” in line 5 is referring to since there are nodes to be paired in claim 1 and nodes to be positioned in claim 2. Claims 3-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 2 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the corresponding information" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 2 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the information on the nodes" in line 5 and "the coordinate of the current node" in line 7 and “the current node” in lines 7-11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 3 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what “them” in line 5 is referring to. Claims 4-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 3 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the pairing network" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 6-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 5 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the anchor points" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 7-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 6 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the coordinate position list of all nodes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 8-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 7 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 8, it is unclear how, in view of “the capturing by cameras”, there is “a capturing by a single camera”. There is a contradiction. Claims 9-10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 8 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the pairing network" in lines 3 and 5 and “the paring network” in line 4 and “the ID of the current node” in lines 4-5 and “the current node” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 9 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what “the sending the pairing information” in lines 3-4 is referring to since there are multiple instances of sending the pairing information in claims 1 and 3. Furthermore, it is unclear how “the sending” (the pairing information) “includes the name of the pairing network…in the pairing network” (how does a step/an action includes information). Claim 10 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 9 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the information of the current node" in line 2 (claim 3 recites the information on the current node) and “the current node” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, it is unclear what “the ID” in line 3 is referring to since claim 9 recites “an identity (ID) in the pairing network” and “the ID of the current node”.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear what the metes and bounds are for “entering”. What is the subject of “entering”? Claims 12-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 11 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the positions of turned-on and turned-off lamps" in lines 11-12 and "the coordinate of the current node" in lines 15-16 and “the current node” in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 12-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 11 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what “the unit” in line 7 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “a unit” in claim 12. Claims 13-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 12 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the corresponding information" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 12 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the node information” in lines 3 and 12 and "the information on the nodes" in line 6 and "the coordinate of the current node" in line 9 and “the current node” in lines 9-10 and 12-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 13 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what “the unit” in line 7 is referring to since there are multiple instances of “a unit” in claims 12-13. Claims 14-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 13 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the process" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 15-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 14 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the pairing network" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 16-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 15 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the scale of coordinates" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 17-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 16 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the coordinate position list of all nodes" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 18-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 17 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear how, in view of “the capturing by cameras”, there is “a capturing by a single camera”. There is a contradiction. Claims 19-20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 18 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the paring network" in lines 3-4 and “the pairing network” in line 5 and “the ID of the current node” in lines 4-5 and “the current node” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 19 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19, it is unclear what “the sending the pairing information” in lines 3-4 is referring to since there are multiple instances of sending the pairing information in claims 11 and 13. Furthermore, it is unclear how “the sending” (the pairing information) “includes the name of the paring network…in the pairing network” (how does a step/an action includes information). Claim 20 fails to resolve the deficiency of claim 19 and are thus rejected under similar rationale.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the information of the current node" in line 2 (claim 13 recites the information on the current node) and “the current node” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what “the ID” in line 3 is referring to since claim 19 recites “an identity (ID) in the paring network” and “the ID of the current node”.
Claim limitations “a module to start…”, “a module to circle…”, “a module to scan…”, “a module to obtain…”, “a module to judge…”, and “a module to mark…” of claim 11, “a unit to obtain a next…”, “a unit to judge…”, “a unit to obtain the images…”, “a unit to obtain the position…”, and “a unit to judge the node’s…” of claim 12, “a unit to obtain…”, “a unit to complete…”, “a unit to judge…”, and “a unit to record…” of claim 13, “a unit to judge…” of claim 14, “a unit to mark anchor…”, “a unit to mark a scale…”, and “a unit to circle…” of claim 16 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 specification is silent as to what a module is and what a unit is. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach, suggest or provide rationale for all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent 9,749,846 discloses image recognition for paring of devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER P CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7152. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 A.M - 6 P.M. ET 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-3795. 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.
/PETER P CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights