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 as outlined below are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims as outlined below of U.S. Patent No. 11994627. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the current application and the 11994627 patent includes a first and second emitter having different PN encoding that are discriminated to determine range based on time-of-flight calculations.
Claims of current application
Claims of 11994627
1
8
2
1
3
1
4
NA
5
NA
6
NA
7
NA
8
NA
9
NA
10
NA
11
8
12
1
13
1
14
NA
15
NA
16
NA
17
NA
18
NA
19
NA
20
NA
21
8
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Referring to claim 1, McCusker (6031601) shows a distance measuring method (see column 1 line 65-column 2 line 4) comprising:
(a) emitting a first optical signal comprising
(b) emitting a second optical signal comprising
(c) receiving the first and second optical signals reflected from at least one object (see figure 3 note d1 and d2 include a return signal from the EDM also see column 2 lines 58-67 and column 5 line 5-15),
(d) at least one processor or processing circuit using the first PN encoding and the second PN encoding to discriminate between first
(e) based on the discriminated first and second
McCusker shows a phase modulated light that is PN modulated and discriminated by individual EDM units. The claim include a pulse train of many optical pulses that are each coded with a PN encoding is not taught by McCusker. The device of McCusker operates in a fundamentally different way that includes determining time of flight range to a target object based on a phase shift (iTOF).
Worfolk (20150091872) shows position measuring method comprising:
(a) emitting a first optical signal comprising
(b) emitting a second optical signal comprising
(c) receiving the first and second optical signals reflected from at least one object (see the sensors that are physically separated from the first and second emitters as shown by the optical receiver J Ref 608),
(d) at least one processor or processing circuit using the first PN encoding and the second PN encoding to discriminate between first
Fleischhauer (6396435), Paradie (6522288), Pradaie (6664918), and Lindenmeier (20060114146) all shows similar TOF sensing devices that including emitting from a first emitter and a second emitter, receiving those signals a sensor, and determining distance via TOF.
Specifically Lindenmeier shows the closest TOF sensor that includes the use of a PN code generator (see figure 4b note the PN code). However Lindenmeier shows transmitting a single PN code and determining TOF based on a phase shift of the PN coded signal that is received at multiple antennas.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights