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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(o). Fig. 10 is a flow diagram whose boxes contain only reference characters (e.g., “202,” “210,” “270”) with no descriptive legends. Descriptive textual legends are required where necessary for understanding of the drawing; each box of Fig. 10 should carry a brief label of the operation performed (e.g., “202 — distortion compensation,” “204 — position correction,” “210 — segmentation,” “270 — overall quality evaluation,” consistent with pp [0093]–[0116]). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. No new matter may be introduced.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3 and 13 — inconsistent terminology: “first deflecting mirror” and “first deflection mirror” are used interchangeably within the same claim. Consistent term should be used throughout.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble recites “the top side of the housing” while the body recites “the top side of the object”; consistent terminology is suggested.
Claim 10 is objected to because it recites “the direction of transport” which lack antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “in at least in one of its captures”. It appears duplicated “in” is used.
Claim 15 recites “optical distortion contained the image data” which should read “contained in the image data.”
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, this language is indefinite for two independent reasons. First, the condition “if necessary” is undefined: the claim provides no objective standard for determining when the mirror is necessary, so a person of ordinary skill cannot ascertain whether a device lacking any mirror falls within the claim (MPEP 2173.05(b); cf. MPEP 2173.05(h) — while “optionally” standing alone may present clear alternatives, an undefined condition of necessity does not). Second, and compounding the first defect, the later recitation “the at least one first deflection mirror” lacks proper antecedent basis in every embodiment in which the conditionally recited mirror is absent: the claim thereby makes a required capture pathway contingent on a structure the claim itself does not require, an internal inconsistency that leaves the metes and bounds of the claim unclear.
Clarification is required to ascertain the scope.
Regarding claim 11, the recited claim portion “optionally including the light reflected from the lateral surface sections … if applicable via at least one first deflecting mirror into the matrix camera (wherein the at least one first deflecting mirror is arranged …).” The stacked qualifiers “optionally … if applicable” leave it unclear whether capture of lateral-surface light — and the mirror through which it passes — is or is not a limitation of the claimed method. Claim 13 then refers to “the at least one first deflection mirror,” whose only antecedent lies inside the conditional clause of claim 11.
Claim 13 is indefinite for the same antecedent-basis.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 are rejected because of their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patents 12700084 and USPGPUB 20260112024 and 20250327756 are in related field of invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TONY KO whose telephone number is (571)272-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5pm.
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, Georgia Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/TONY KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
TK
Prosecution Insights