DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/05/2026 (“06/05/2026 Submission”) has been entered.
In the 06/05/2026 Submission, the Applicant added new claims 21-27.
Claims 2-3, 14-15 and 17-19 are cancelled.
Currently, claims 1, 4-13, 16 and 20-27 are examined as below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 23 fails to comply with the written description requirement, because a new limitation “wherein the optical system is configured such that, by narrowing the light exit angle in the second direction, a difference in optical path length of light in the second direction is small enough not to affect distance measurement” is not supported by original disclosure. According to Figs. 5-8 of the present application, the light is diffused through the optical system 40. In other words, the light exit angle increases through the optical system 40. Thus there is no evidence in the original disclosure shows the optical system narrows the light exit angle in the second direction. There is also no mentioning in the original disclosure that a difference in optical path length of light in the second direction is small enough not to affect distance measurement, as required by the newly added claim 23.
Claim 26 fails to comply with the written description requirement, because a new limitation “wherein the detector is configured to detect reflected light of light emitted from each of the multiple light emitting regions as one distance for each of the light emitting regions in the first direction” is not supported by original disclosure. According to paragraphs 38 and 109 of the present application, the detector detects reflected light of the light emitted from the light emitting device. However, there is no mentioning of the reflected light “as one distance for each of the light emitting regions in the first direction” as required by claim 26.
New or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971).
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 26 is 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 26 is indefinite, because the limitation “wherein the detector is configured to detect reflected light of light emitted from each of the multiple light emitting regions as one distance for each of the light emitting regions in the first direction” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what such “one distance for each of the light emitting regions in the first direction” is in reference to, whether such one distance is the distance/length of the reflected light or at a preset distance from which the detector detects the reflected light from each light emitting regions in the first direction.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 1, 4-13, 16, 20-22, 24-25 and 27 are allowed.
Independent claim 1 is allowed, because claim 1 includes previously-indicated allowable subject matter of claim 1 as set forth in the Notices of Allowability dated 03/13/2026 and 05/13/2026.
Claims 4-13, 16, 20-22, 24-25 and 27 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed claim 1.
Claims 23 and 26 are rejected, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 1st paragraph, and/or 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 would be allowable, because claim 23 depends from the allowed claim 1.
Claim 26 would be allowable, because claim 26 depends from the allowed claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKKA LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-2568. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5AM EST M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on 571-272-7925. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2817
/RATISHA MEHTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights