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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on Feb 10th, 2002 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant previously elected without traverse Group I, Species I, relating to claims 1-4, 66 in the reply filed on September 22nd, 2025.
As no prior art is found for claim 1, claims 5-24 are hereby rejoined.
Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement withdrawing claims 5-24, is hereby withdrawn and claim 5-24 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 25-64 remain withdrawn as they do not include all the limitations of soon to be allowable claim 1. Therefore, please cancel claims 25-64 in the next response to expedite allowance.
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 1-24 and 66 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 claims 3, 5, 12, 18, 22, 23, and 24, the limitations include the limitation "the light receiving element" which in the latest amendment was replaced by "the photodetection element". The claims should be corrected to instead use the phrase "the photodetection element" or other possible corrective manner to remove 'the light receiving element' from the claims which is no longer a claimed limitation.
Many of the claims include limitations that are directed to structural claims in an active method step, but claim 1 and its dependents are directed to a device claim, and therefore, only represent the device and not method steps relating to the device, thus an active method step in a device claim is unclear as to the exact scope (is it just able to be used in the manner or does it have to be in use). This should be corrected throughout the claims (see some examples below):
In claim 1 - "an emission surface that is configured to [[emits]] emit a luminous flux"
"the photodetection element is configured to detect [[detects]] only invisible light..."
In claim 3 - "the photodetection element is configured to detect [[detects]] invisible light...."
Please review all claims 1-24 and 66 and fix all instances of limitations that relate to active methods steps as well as any instance including “the photodetection element” that may have been missed in the explanation above.
Claims 2-24, and 66 include all the limitations of claim 1 and follow the same rejection as above.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB R MARIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5887. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached on (571) 272-2266. 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.
/JACOB RAUL MARIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights