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 .
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/989,728 filed 12/20/2024. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35. U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 have been entered and considered. Initialed copies of the PTO-1449 by the examiner are attached.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification does not include any paragraph numbering. As described in MPEP 608.01, the specification “should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 14 recite limitations that use words like “means” (or “step”) or similar terms with functional language and do invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
Claim 14; recites the limitation, “means for placing the part…,”.
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.
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification the following limitations in claim(s) 14:
“means for placing” (Fig. 1a, #4. PGPUB Paragraph [0105], [0138]- “In one embodiment, the device further comprises means for placing the part to be classified in the inner region by means of either free fall or a launch” and “Furthermore, FIG. 1a shows means (4) for placing the part (2) to be classified in the inner region by free fall” wherein means for placing do not have sufficient structure or material associated with it).
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, 4, 6, 14 and 15 as well as their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 5, and 7-13 by dependency 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 at iii. recites, in part, “discretizing a domain formed by all the possible values of the angles selected in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 at iv. recites, in part, “generating an image of the model for each orientation established in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 at j) recites, in part, “classify the part as corresponding to the model selected in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 at c.2) recites, in part, “preferably the centroid of the inner area of the closed path”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “centroid” and “inner area” as they were not previously recited anywhere in the claim.
Claim 4 at c.5) recites, in part, “for each parametrized point t of the closed path, the distance between point t and the characteristic point”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “distance” as it was not previously recited anywhere in the claim.
Claim 6 at line 3 recites, in part, “offset value, is determined as the minimum distance between both functions”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “minimum distance” as it was not previously recited anywhere in the claim.
Claim 14 recites, in part, “means for placing the part to be classified in the inner region by means of either free fall or a launch”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms “inner region” as the were not previously recited anywhere in the claim.
Claim 15 at iii. recites, in part, “discretizing a domain formed by all the possible values of the angles selected in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 15 at iv. recites, in part, “generating an image of the model for each orientation established in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 at 10) recites, in part, “classifying the part as corresponding to the model selected in the preceding step”. However, it is unclear as to what preceding step is being referred at this instance as there are many steps preceding the current one. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 recites limitations:
Claim 14; recites the limitation, “means for placing the part…”.
Claim 14 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 devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of the ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performed(s) the claimed function.
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.
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 14 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function in the recited limitation
Claim 14 recites limitations:
Claim 14; recites the limitation, “means for placing the part…”.
The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 9-11, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 8, should recite, in part, “wherein the processor is further configured to
Claim 1 at lines 19-20, should recite, in part, “wherein the reference characteristic functions fm(t) are predefined according to
Claim 4 at lines 2-3, should recite, in part, “the reference characteristic functions fm(t) comprises
Claim 15 at lines 1-2, should recite, in part, “wherein the method comprises the processor of the device executing :” to avoid typographical errors and/or clarity issues.
Claim 15 at line 14, should recite, in part, “according to
Claims 1 and 15 recite a list with numbers/letters different from each other. Applicant is advised to maintain a consistency in list types, for example, using only multi-level list of letters instead of numbers, to avoid 112(b) clarity issues.
Claim 1 should recite, in part, at g) “merge the n scalar functions gj into a single scalar function ga by
Claim 5 should recite, in part, “wherein step c) of defining the characteristic function f(t) and/or the reference characteristic functions fm(t) is performed by
Claim 9 should recite, in part, “wherein the representative model of the shape of the part is either a numerical model and step iv), in which an image of the model is generated for each established orientation, is performed by
Claim 14 should recite, in part, “further comprising means for placing the part to be classified in the inner region by
Claim 15 should recite, in part, at g) “merging the n scalar functions gj into a single scalar function ga by
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9-11 and 15 recite the term “step” or “steps” which should be omitted to avoid potential 112b clarity issues.
Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pérez Cortés et al. (US 20220327727 A1) – method for reconstructing a three-dimensional shape of an object using a plurality of cameras and their optical centers positioned at orientations towards a center point of a sphere, Fig. 1.
Pérez Cortés et al. (US 20210334948 A1) – determines a coherence between a physical object and a numerical model representative of the shape of the physical object.
Fujieda et al. (US 20100231690 A1) – confirming a recognition result of a three-dimensional model and transforming coordinates based on a recognized position and rotational angle using imaging planes of three cameras.
Lipson et al. (US 7167583 B1) – an inspection system includes a plurality of models are applied in a way that enhances the effectiveness of each type of model, and includes an image model, a structural model and a geometric model to inspect objects. A matching method is used to translate the image of the object being inspected into a set of attributes like those included in the model.
Lee et al. (US 20250045498 A1) – query design reference from part database that has features that are similar to or same as part features of representative part model, the query design reference from a part database is based on using similarity metrics that quantifies the degree of resemblance between representative model and design reference stored in the part database.
Usui (US 11557112 B1) – a two-dimensional print of a part for manufacture is identified by a curve feature of the two-dimensional print as a function of scaling, wherein the curve feature comprises a plurality of line segments and classifies a line type of the curve feature using line observations as a function of the curve feature identification.
Dudkiewicz (US 5515168 A) – a device for identification and classification of subjects having variable non-standardized shapes, using at least one given characteristic dimensional parameter.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 AM - 8 PM EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/EMMANUEL SILVA-AVINA/Examiner, Art Unit 2673
/CHINEYERE WILLS-BURNS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights