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. DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to the application 18/264,760 filed on 08/09/2023. Claims 1 - 18 have been examined and are pending in this application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/09/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ data analysis unit ” , “processing determination unit ”, “communication unit ”, “” in clai m 1, 2, 4 – 8, 10 – 12, 17 and 18 . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function. 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. Claim 1, 17, 18 states “a processing determination unit that determines …….. on a basis of an analysis result of the data analysis unit” and a control unit that controls……determined by the processing determination unit and executes a light output process ”, this claimed feature is so broad and vague because the claim doesn’t clarify based on what analysis results the processing unit will determine the condition or the second clause, executing light output process based on which condition or what types of process will be executed , it doesn’t say anything else, unless the dependent claims 5 and 7 brought into consideration. If the claims 5 and 7 added into independent claims, then it gives some sort of clarification how the invention works or targeted output. As currently recited, it seems like variable a is depending on analysis result, and variable b will be executed based on some timing control or probably they are not connected , too broad . Examiner suggesting to re-write the claim language incorporating dependent claims 5 - 7 with a meaningful connection so that it can get patentable weight. Rest of the other dependent claims, either directly or indirectly, dependent from a claims 1, 17 and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Claims 1 - 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The Examiner notes that no prior art rejection is being issued at this time, due to the lack of clarity in the limitations of the independent claims. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5 and 7 or 10 and 11, 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Masum Billah whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0701 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Friday 9 - 5 PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jamie J. Atala can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7384 . 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. PBA. /MASUM BILLAH/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486