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 .
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.
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: “error calculating unit calculating error” “an optical axis direction correcting unit correcting” & “the error calculating unit further calculates error information” in claims 1, 5, & 6.
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.
Applicant teaches a non-transitory computer recording medium storing computer executable
instructions for processing laser scanning data for obtaining error in optical axis in a laser (claim 8).
Applicant teaches optical axis direction correcting unit realized by a computer installed in the laser scanning
apparatus. One, some, or all of the above-mentioned functional units can be constructed of special
hardware (0027, lines 10-11).
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 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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a photodetector, does not reasonably provide enablement for a computer. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The amount of direction provided by the inventor is limited in which the error calculating unit i.e. computer is calculating error in the optical path of the laser. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Clarification is required.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ganhua Li, “An Algorithm for Extrinsic Parameters Calibration of a Camera and a Laser Range Finder Using Line Features”, Nov 2, 2007 & Xuepeng Chu, “An Improved Method for Calibration Between a 2D Lidar and a Camera Based on Point-Line
Correspondences”, 2019.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 & 8 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As to claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “an error calculating unit calculating error of the laser scanning light in its optical axis direction, wherein a diagram is arranged on the housing, a diagram onto which laser scanning is performed by the laser scanning light,”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a diagram is arranged on the housing, the diagram on which laser scanning is performed by the laser scanning light ”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 7.
As to claim 8, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious “a diagram is arranged on the housing, the diagram on which laser scanning is performed by the laser scanning light”, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 8.
The closets prior art of records Chu and Li each teach a diagram having a shape of which size in a direction parallel to the laser scanning direction is not constant in combination with a rotating laser scanning light, wherein the diagrams are located outside of the housing of the rotating light source. Therefore, the prior art fails to teach the diagram is arranged on the housing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE C SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-2526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm 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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/MAURICE C SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights