DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the first line of paragraph [0004], "the distance measurement apparatus" should be changed to
--a distance measurement apparatus--, and also on this line, "the light emitting unit" should be changed to --a light emitting unit--. On line 10 of paragraph [0049], "This operations" should be changed to --These operations--. On line 7 of paragraph [0053], the word "higher" should be changed to --high--. On the penultimate line of paragraph [0065], the word --is-- should be inserted after "heat", and on the last line of this paragraph, the word "up" should be changed to --down--. On line 6 of paragraph [0068], the word "of" at the end of line should be changed to --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claims 4 and 5, lines 3-4 of each, "the light emitting section arranged in the first direction with respect to the first light emitting section" lacks antecedent basis.
On the second line of claim 7, as a minor point, a comma should be inserted after the word "that", i.e., lines 2-6 of this claim appear to be reciting "wherein the light emitting device is driven such that...the plurality of light emitting periods of a next light emitting section group are started", with the qualifying limitation "after the plurality of light emitting periods of one light emitting section group...light emitting section" being inserted after the word "that" on line 2, and continuing through to the word "section" at the beginning of line 6. It is noted, however, that the qualifying limitation "after the plurality of light emitting periods...first light emitting section" on lines 2-6 of claim 7 is unclear, i.e., it appears that one or more words of text are missing in this qualifying limitation. Also in claim 7, as a minor point, a comma should also be inserted at the end of line 3, i.e., after the word "groups", in order to qualify that each of the light emitting section groups includes the first light emitting section and the second light emitting section.
Claim 8 is indefinite in view of its dependency on indefinite claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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 1-11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hannurkar, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0381917.
As to claim 1, Hannurkar discloses, in figures 1 and 10 through 13D,
a drive device (11) configured to:
cause a light emitting device including a plurality of light emitting sections (the claimed "light emitting device" can be read on lighting device 12 or light emitting unit 21 shown in figure 1 of Hannurkar, and the claimed "plurality of light emitting sections" can be read on the plurality of rows of light emitting elements 41 shown in figure 10, i.e., a first light emitting section is the top row of light elements 41E through 41H, a second light emitting section is the second row of light elements 41A through 41D, and a third light emitting section is the third row of light elements 41I through 41L) to emit light such that each of the light emitting sections has a predetermined plurality of light emitting periods and a light non-emitting period following each of the light emitting periods (note figures 11A through 13D of Hannurkar which show light emitting elements 41 alternatingly emitting light and not emitting light, i.e., the dark shaded pulses indicate when the light emitting element 41 is lit up, and the times between such shaded pulses indicate when the light emitting element 41 is not lit up, and this means that each light emitting section has a predetermined plurality of light emitting periods and a light non-emitting period following each of the light emitting periods); and
switch a second light emitting section other than a first light emitting section among the plurality of light emitting sections (note that figures 11A through 13D of Hannurkar show switching of the above-noted second light emitting sections, i.e., the claimed first and second light emitting sections are the light emitting elements of the first two rows shown in figure 10 and they are on/off controlled as shown in figures 11A through 13D of Hannurkar, i.e., the first light emitting section formed by the top row of light emitting elements 41 will have light emitting periods corresponding to the shaded pulses and will also have light a non-emitting period following the light emitting period, i.e., the time immediately after one of the shaded pulses and before the start of the next shaded pulse, and the second light emitting section formed by the next four light emitting elements 41 below the above-noted first light emitting section will have light emitting periods to be included in the light non-emitting period of the first light emitting section, i.e., when the shaded pulse of the second light emitting section is still going when the shaded pulse of the first light emitting section has ended, i.e., when there is overlap between the shaded pulse corresponding to the second light emitting section and the space between the shaded pulses corresponding to the first light emitting section, and note that the shaded pulses corresponding to the second light emitting sections change throughout figures 11A through 13D and, therefore, the second light emitting section is switched).
As to claims 2-9, the functional limitations recited in these claims will be inherent during the operation of the Hannurkar drive device, note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
As to claims 10 and 11, the limitations of these two claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above with regard to independent claim 1 (note that the claimed light receiving unit and control unit of claim 11 will be inherent in Hannurkar's drive device).
As to claims 14 and 15, the functional limitations recited in these claims will be inherent during the operation of the Hannurkar drive device, again note that it has long been held by the courts that where the examiner has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the examiner possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on, see In re Swinehart, 58 CCPA 1027, 169 USPQ 226 (1971).
Double Patenting
7. Claims 1, 10 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/432,025 (note independent claim 1 in USPAP 2024/0345226, hereinafter the '226 publication) in view of Hannurkar, supra. Claims 1, 10 and 11 of the instant application would have been obvious in view of the claim 1 of the ‘226 publication when taken in view of Hannurkar. Note, for example, that the limitations recited on the first four lines of independent claim 1 of the present application are fully anticipated by what is recited on the first six lines of claim 1 of the '226 publication, and the limitations recited on the last three lines of independent claim 1 of the present application are fully anticipated by what is recited on the last six lines of claim 1 of the '226 publication, except for the limitation of "switching" the second light emitting section. It is noted, however, that such switching of the second light emitting section would have been obvious in view of the above-noted teachings of Hannurkar, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to drive the first and second light emitting sections of claim 1 of the ‘226 publication with different on/off pulsing states, and therefore independent claim 1 of the instant application does not distinguish patentably over independent claim 1 of the '226 publication.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 12 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record discloses or suggests that the distance measurement apparatus of the drive unit acquires an index that is changed due to heat generation of the plurality of light emitting sections of the light emitting unit, and the second light emitting section is switched according to the index in a case where the plurality of light emitting sections of the light emitting unit emit light under a predetermined condition, as recited in claim 12. Claim 13 is allowable in view of its dependency on allowable claim 12.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note also figure 3 of Wang (USPAP 2023/0341551) which is also seen to anticipate at least independent claims 1, 10 and 11, i.e., Wang discloses on/off periods of light emitting units LS_1 and LS_2 wherein the on period of a second light emitting section overlaps with an off period of a first light emitting section. Also note figures 6A through 6D of Wu et al (USPAP 2023/0333251) which shows the same type of teaching as Wang, supra, and is therefore also seen to anticipate at least independent claims 1, 10 and 11. Finally, note figures 2 through 4 of Nakajima et al (USP 5,099,266) which also appears to show on/off periods of different light emitting sections where the non-emitting lighting period of a first light emitting section overlaps with a light-emitting period of a second light emitting section adjacent to or below the first light emitting section, i.e., Nakajima et al also appears to anticipate at least independent claims 1, 10 and 11.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5pm.
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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights