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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 9/12/2023 has been considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings filed 9/12/2023 are approved by the examiner. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/276,347 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: With respect to claim 1, the claims of 18/276,347 teach or suggest: An optical module comprising: a light emission unit including light emitting elements arrayed two-dimensionally [ taught by lines 2 - 3 of claim 1 of 18/276,347 ] ; and a diffraction element that diffracts a light beam radiated from each of the light emitting elements and separates the light beam into a plurality of light beams [ taught by lines 4-7 of claim 1 of 18/276,347 ] , wherein the light emission unit has a multi-array structure based on a structure in which the light emitting elements are respectively disposed at vertexes forming a quadrangle of which sides facing each other are parallel to each other [ taught by lines 8-11 of claim 1 of 18/276,347 ] , a distance between the light emitting elements on a side in a first direction is set to a and a distance between the light emitting elements on a side in a second direction orthogonal to the side in the first direction is set to b [ taught by lines 13-17 of claim 1 of 18/276,347 ] , the diffraction element generates diffracted light in an n direction (n is a natural number) and an angle 0x formed between one diffraction direction and the side in the first direction satisfies 0x = tan-1(b/ na ), and when angle differences of two light beams generated by inter-light emission distances a and b are set to фа and φb , respectively, and m is set to a natural number excluding an integral multiple of (2n + 1), a diffraction angle φх of the diffracted light satisfies φх = m X sqrt ( noa ) 2 + φb²} / (2n + 1) [ taught by lines 18-28 of claim 1 of USPN 18/276,347 ] . Claims 2 and 3 would have been able to be inferred from the subject matter of claim 1 of 18/276,3247, as applied to claim 1 of the present application. Claim 4 is taught by claim 4 of 18/276,347. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably expected to have inferred claim 5 from claims 2 and 4 of 18/276,347. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been reasonably expected to have inferred claim 6 from claim 5 of 18/276,347. Claim 7 would have been obvious in view of claim 3 of 18/276,347 because multipath correction of detected signals was a commonly known practice in the art of laser range detection. Claim 8 is taught by claim 6 of 18/276,347. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter Upon filing of a terminal disclaimer with respect to copending Application No. 18/276,347, claims 1-8 would be allowable. The cited prior art, when taken alone or in combination, does not teach or suggest “… the light emission unit has a multi-array structure based on a structure in which the light emitting elements are respectively disposed at vertexes forming a quadrangle of which sides facing each other are parallel to each other, a distance between the light emitting elements on a side in a first direction is set to a and a distance between the light emitting elements on a side in a second direction orthogonal to the side in the first direction is set to b …” , as this configuration’s metrics are specified in independent claims 1, 2 and 3. Claims 4-8 depend on claim 1. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to FILLIN "Insert the name of the examiner designated to be contacted first regarding inquiries about the Office action." \* MERGEFORMAT MARK HELLNER at telephone number FILLIN "Insert the individual area code and phone number of the examiner to be contacted." \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6981 . Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. /MARK HELLNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645