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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-12 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 11, and 12, each appear to conflate functionality attributed to a “transmitting device” and a “communication target” which is inconsistent with the present application. The preambles of each of the independent claims start this by reciting that the transmitting device sends a spatial optical signal but then state that a receiving device receives “the spatial optical signal” from the “communication target”. From the wording of claim 1 and looking at the Specification, the transmitting device and receiving device are collocated and are remote from the communication target. Furthermore, the communication target is not recited as being configured to reflect optical signals sent from the transmitting device. Therefore, this language is inconsistent with the Specification and another optical signal sent from the communication target to the receiving device appears necessary for appropriate claim construction. This issue continues within the bodies of the independent claims which refer to a “scanning signal” sent from the transmitting device but then recite “the scanning signal transmitted from the communication target”. In addition, the third clauses of each independent claim in effect recite “specifying a direction of transmission of the scanning signal transmitted from the communication target transmission of the scanning signal transmitted from the communication target according to a reception interval between the pulse pattern of the scanning signal transmitted from the communication target in the first period and the pulse pattern of the scanning”. Based upon the Specification of the published application, paragraph [0048] does indicate that this clause is performed by the communication target (referred to as communication device 1B). However, this creates two issues: 1) the reception interval is also recited as being from the scanning signal transmitted from the communication target instead of from the transmitting device, which is a problem since the communication target is not described as receiving reflected signals and 2) each of the independent claims recite limitations of controlling the collocated transmitting device and receiving device, not the (remote) communication target. As can be seen in the Figures, there is no device that is in control of both the transmitting device and the (remote) communication target and indeed this would make the claimed invention redundant as it appears related to discovering where disparate communication devices are in a system. Therefore, the functionality of the third clause attributed to the communication target does not flow from devices and a control method for controlling the transmitting device (and the receiving device). This issue continues with the final clauses of the independent claims as the recite transmitting “a notification signal” and appear to state that this is sent by the transmitting device to the “communication target”. When looking to the Specification, both the communication target (i.e. communication device 1B) and the device where the transmitting device and the receiving device are collocated (i.e. communication device 1A) transmit notification signals to each other per Figure 6. However, paragraph [0048] specifically states that the notification signal specifying a direction to the transmitting device is sent from the communication target. Dependent claims 8 and 9 also verify this interpretation explicitly. Therefore, the wording of the final clauses of the independent claims is inconsistent with the Specification and as with above, it is not apparent how a control device or method for controlling the transmitting device and receiving device would also be controlling the (remote) communication target. Dependent claims 2-10 do not cure claim 1 of these issues and appear to exacerbate them by further conflating where the scanning signal is being sent from and to and including control steps for the communication target which would not be reasonably controlled by the recited communication control device.
Further regarding claim 1, the end of the preamble is not clear from the current wording. It appears that Applicant intends for the communication control device to comprise a memory and processor but as written, the preamble appears to end after the semicolon which would not include said elements. This also leads to issues as no devices comprised within the communication control device would be positively recited in the body of the claim. Dependent claims 2-10 do not cure claim 1 of this issue as well.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 11, and 12 appear to 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-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. As there will likely be substantial amendments, the Examiner will forgo reasons for indicating allowable subject matter until amended claims are filed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635