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/CN2023/123920, filed on October 11, 2023, and claims foreign priority to Chinese patent application No. 202211281815.2 filed on October 19, 2022. Claim 9 has have been cancelled and new claims 12-21 have been entered via preliminary amendment. An action on the merits follows. Claims 1-8 and 10-21 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-8 and 10-21 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 “obtaining a transparent object segmentation result” in lines 5-6 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of 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.
Claim 1 further recites the limitation “obtain a first depth map without transparent object depth information” in line 9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of the claim, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 2-8 and 12-17 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “transparent object pixel points in the first depth map” in lines 4-5 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” recited in claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” recited in claim 4 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 8 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 8 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 8 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 12 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 12 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 13 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 13 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 14 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 14 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 14 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 15 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 15 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 15 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 16 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 16 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 17 recites the limitation “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” in lines 9-12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 17 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of claim 1, or if the claimed “prediction of a transparent object” and “a boundary between a transparent object” recited in claim 17 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 3 of claim 1, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 5-6 of 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 10 recites the limitation “obtaining a transparent object segmentation result” in lines 10-11 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, or if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of 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.
Claim 10 further recites the limitation “obtain a first depth map without transparent object depth information” in line 14 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 10-11 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of the claim, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 10-11 of 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 18-21 are rejected by virtue of being dependent upon rejected base claim 10.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “transparent object pixel points in the first depth map” in lines 4-5 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of claim 10, or if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” recited in claim 20 encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 10-11 of claim 10, or if the claimed “transparent object pixel points” recited in claim 20 encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 8 of claim 10, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 10-11 of claim 11, 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 11 recites the limitation “obtaining a transparent object segmentation result” in lines 8-9 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, or if the claimed “a transparent object segmentation result” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 6 of 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.
Claim 11 further recites the limitation “obtain a first depth map without transparent object depth information” in line 12 of the claim. However, it is not clear if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 8-9 of the claim, or if the claimed “transparent object depth information” encompass embodiments corresponding to another “transparent object” different from the claimed “at least one transparent object” previously recited in line 6 of the claim, or different from the claimed “transparent object” previously recited in lines 8-9 of 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.
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