DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the Application filed on January 17, 2025, which is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/CN2024/092190, filed on September 19, 2024, and claims priority to the Chinese Patent Application No. 202310227303.6, filed March 10, 2023. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-6 are pending on the application.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “sonar” in line 1 of the claim. However, the acronym sonar is undefined in the claims. To clarify that the acronym means sound navigation and raging, examiner suggests amending “sonar” in line 1 of claim 1 to “sound navigation and raging (sonar)”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 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 “stitching forward-looking sonar images while retaining information” in line 1 of the claim. However, the claimed “information” term is not defined by the claim. Additionally, it is not clear if, or how, the claimed “retaining” of “information” is performed because it lacks the necessary steps to define the “retaining” process, which renders the claim indefinite.
The same rationale above applies to the claimed “retaining information” recited in dependent claims 2-6, respectively.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “acquisition of a forward-looking sonar image sequence… information extraction” in lines 2-3 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” recited in line 2 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of the claim, or if the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” recited in line 2 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to another “forward-looking sonar image sequence” different from the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “information extraction” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed retained “information” previously recited in claim 1, or if the claimed “information extraction” encompass embodiments corresponding to other “extracted information” different from the claimed retained “information” previously recited in claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “applying the global rotational displacement to images” in lines 6-7 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “images” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of the claim, or if the claimed “images” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in line 2 of the claim, or if the claimed “images” recited in line 7 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to other “images” different from the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” and the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in the claim, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 2 recites “estimating relative rotational displacements between forward-looking sonar images” in line 4 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” recited in line 4 of the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” recited in line 4 of claim 2 encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in line 2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” recited in line 4 of claim 2 encompass embodiments corresponding to other “forward-looking sonar images” different from the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” and the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites “calculating pixel value variances of each forward-looking sonar image… calculating pixel value variances of each forward-looking sonar image” in lines 4-10 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “each forward-looking sonar image” recited in the claim encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “each forward-looking sonar image” recited claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in line 2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “each forward-looking sonar image” recited in claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to other “forward-looking sonar images” different from the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” and the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “local effective information of the image” in lines 13-15 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “image” recited in claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” previously recited in line 1 of claim 1, or if the claimed “image” recited claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in line 2 of claim 1, or if the claimed “image” recited claim 3 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “image” different from any of the claimed “forward-looking sonar images” and the claimed “forward-looking sonar image sequence” previously recited in the claim, for example. Additionally, it is not clear if the claimed “effective information of the image” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed retained “information” previously recited in claim 1, or if the claimed “effective information of the image” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed extracted “information” previously recited in claim 1, or if the claimed “effective information of the image” encompass embodiments corresponding to other “effective information of the image” different from the claimed retained “information” previously recited in claim 1 and the claimed extracted “information” previously recited in claim 1, for example. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are not clearly set forth and the examiner cannot clearly determine which elements are encompassed by the claim language, which renders the claim indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-4979. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GUILLERMO M RIVERA-MARTINEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights