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 .
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 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/377,161 (see claims filed on 10/05/2023). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 1 reads on claim 1, lines 4-9.
Claims 2-10 read on claims 2-10 (respectively).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Divine et al.
Divine et al. (FR 3079179 A1) discloses:
Regarding claim 1, an information projection device (i.e. interface; see translation, page 7, lines 22-26), comprising: a controller (i.e. control component [element 2]; see translation, page 2, lines 10-15); a laser diode (Figure 2, element 15) operatively coupled with the controller (i.e. the laser beam generator is fixed to the rotor; see translation, page 2, lines 14-15); and at least one diffraction optical element (Figure 2, element 17) disposed to receive a beam of light (Figure 2, element 15a) from the laser diode (Figure 2, element 15) and project the beam to a target area (Figure 2, element 7).
Regarding claim 2, a wheel (Figure 2, element 3), wherein the at least on diffraction optical element (Figure 2, element 17) is situated on the wheel (Figure 2, element 3).
Regarding claim 3, a plurality of diffraction optical elements (i.e. optical diffractor element; Figure 2, element 17) are situated about a periphery of the wheel (Figure 2, element 3).
Regarding claim 4, the wheel (Figure 2, element 3) further comprises at least one element (i.e. symbol [Figure 2, element 9] specific to the indexing position) for locating a position on the wheel (Figure 2, element 3).
Regarding claim 5, the wheel (Figure 2, element 3) further comprises at least one magnetic element (i.e. magnet; see translation, page 5, line 13).
Regarding clam 6, a control board (Figure 2, element 13) that comprises at least one magnetic element (i.e. element 13 may include Hall effect sensors [see translation, page 5, line 12]; it is well known in the art that Hall effect sensors are used with a separate, permanent magnet to detect a variety of things, such as whether a door is open or closed, rotational position, or speed, etc.), the magnetic element (i.e. element 3 may include a magnet; see translation, page 5, line 13) for energizing and cooperation with the at least one magnetic element (i.e. magnet; see translation, page 5, line 13) on the wheel for rotating the wheel (Figure 2, element 3).
Regarding claim 7, at least one diffraction optical element (i.e. optical diffractor element; element 17 illustrated in Figure 2 and 3) includes information relating to operation of a vehicle (see translation, page 6, lines 18-20).
Regarding clam 8, each of a plurality of diffraction optical elements (i.e. optical diffractor element; element 17 illustrated in Figure 2 and 3) includes a sequence element of a plurality of sequences (i.e. patterns; Figure 3, element 9) of elements such that upon the display of the sequence of elements an animated information is displayed (see translation, page 6, lines 14-22).
Regarding claim 9, a motor (i.e. rotor and stator) operatively coupled with the wheel (Figure 2, element 3) and the controller (i.e. control component [element 2]; see translation, page 2, lines 10-15), the motor (i.e. rotor and stator) configured to rotate the wheel (Figure 2, element 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divine et al. in view of Chien.
Divine et al. (FR 3079179 A1) teaches the salient features of the present invention as explained above except a beam collimator disposed between the diffraction optical elements and the laser diode, configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements.
Chien (US Pub. No. 2019/0120450 A1) discloses a beam collimator (Figure 8, element Q-10) disposed between the diffraction optical elements (Figure 8, elements Q3-1, Q3 and Q4) and the laser diode (Figure 8, element Q1), configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements (Figure 8, element
Q3-1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a beam collimator disposed between the diffraction optical elements and the laser diode, configured to collimate the laser through at least one of the diffraction optical elements as shown by Chien in combination with Divine et al.’s invention for the purpose of changing the LED narrow light emit-angle to wider angle and become parallel light beam emit into top optic piece in form of the image forming unit (Chien, page 38, paragraph 0646, lines 24-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eichhoen et al. (EP 3885195 A1) discloses a controller is configured to control the projector to adjust the light beam to provide visual guidance to a user in the vehicle or a person outside the vehicle. The projector is configured to animate the light beam from a first area in the vehicle to a second area in the vehicle to provide the visual guidance. The projector is configured to animate the light beam if it is needed to take over from autonomous driving. The second area is a steering wheel of the vehicle. The projector is installed on a gimbal. The light beam is a pixel-based illumination.
Koser et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0174450 A1) teaches a MEMS projector arranged at the front side or the rear side, can output a notification message to a front, a rear, a left or a right floor.
Reichow et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0157483 A1) shows a projector for projecting diffracted light in a selectable pattern and/or animation on a display surface. The apparatus includes a light source providing one or more beams of coherent light from one or more lasers. The apparatus includes a diffraction assembly in the path of the light source to generate diffracted light by diffracting the laser light with one, two, or more diffraction grating patterns and, optionally, with a diffraction glass or other material. An active mask is provided with a raster that receives the diffracted light and that includes a plurality of optical shutter elements that are selectively operable to project a portion of the diffracted light from the active mask toward the display surface. In one example, the active mask includes a liquid crystal display panel to provide a grid of addressable programmable pixels that are turned on and off to project portions of the diffracted light.
Chen (US Patent No. US 6,267,478 B1) discloses a pattern-changing structure for a projection light system comprising a base plate, a rotating disc, a motor, and a patterned disc, and the motor is mounted at one lateral side of the base plate, and the shaft center of the cam passes through the center of the base plate and the rotating disc, to form as a unit. A crankshaft having two ends is mounted to the base plate, and one end is mounted with a stopping region and the other end is mounted with a spring hook. The spring hook is connected to a pulling spring and a cavity hole is provided on the base plate for the protrusion of the stopping region. The rotating disc is also provided with a plurality of positioning teeth. When the motor rotates, the cam controls the crankshaft to protrude/extend or to retract, and the positioning teeth is either extended or retracted. Thus, the rotating disc is rotated intermittently and various pattern images are obtained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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.
/MAGDA CRUZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2882
10/29/2025