DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
This office action is in response to the preliminary amendment of May 9 2024, which amendment has been ENTERED.
It is noted that claims 1-10 stand CANCELLED.
It is further noted that claims 11-20 are NEWLY-ADDED.
The drawings of May 9, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Objection to the Specification
The text of 37 CFR 1.71(a) is as follows:
“(a) The specification must include a written description of the invention or discovery and of the manner and process of making and using the same, and is required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which the invention or discovery appertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” (Bold added)
The specification is hereby objected to under 37 CFR 1.71(a) in that it is not in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms,” noting the formula at the end of paragraph [0040]. Particularly, is the function in the formula the two-argument arctangent, two times the arctangent, or, something else? Further, the mention of “claim 1” in paragraph [0006] is unclear in that the claims can change during prosecution. Claim 1 is presently cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
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 11-20 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.
Throughout claims 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20, each and every use of the term, “pixel” (or its plural form) is indefinite and unclear in context in that the ordinary and customary meaning of “pixel” does not make sense in context. Particularly, a “pixel” is a picture element, not, an item of hardware. The uses of the term in the listed claims only make sense if they are taken as meaning hardware. Although an applicant is permitted to be his own lexicographer, there must be a specific definition of the intended sense of the term in the specification. Please see MPEP 2111.01, IV, and, MPEP 2173.05(a), III.
In independent claim 11, it is unclear if a “radar” is positively recited, or, if it is just incidentally mentioned.
On line 14 of independent claim 11, the terms, “adjacent indication light sources or deflection elements” lack antecedent basis in that these terms are in the plural sense, and, in that is no earlier mention of either of these terms in the plural.
On line 17 of independent claim 20, the terms, “adjacent indication light sources or deflection elements” lack antecedent basis in that these terms are in the plural sense, and, in that is no earlier mention of either of these terms in the plural.
On line 12 of independent claim 11, the phrase, “multiple times smaller” is indefinite and unclear in context as to what “multiple” is meant. For example, are the multiples fractions (e.g., 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, and so on), ruling out intermediate sizes?
On line 14 of independent claim 20, the phrase, “multiple times smaller” is indefinite and unclear in context as to what “multiple” is meant. For example, are the multiples fractions (e.g., 1/2, 2/3, 3/4, and so on), ruling out intermediate sizes?
Each of dependent claims 12-19 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 11.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 20 would 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.
Claims 12-19 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakamura et al (‘965) is of general interest for the illustrated arrangement with the light guide plate 60 and the radar 40.
Salter et al (‘023) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the vehicle rear lighting assembly.
Orisich et al (‘700) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of a vehicle headlamp.
Van Bommel et al (‘984) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the lighting device.
Sugita et al (‘466) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the light emitting element.
Baker et al (‘003) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the vehicle lamp.
Bell et al (‘883) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the vehicle light with radar.
Kirino et al (‘344) is of general interest for the disclosed waveguide device module.
Iguchi (‘373) is of general interest for disclosed arrangement of the image sensor with radar.
Khayat et al (‘321) is of general interest for the disclosed arrangement of the vehicle body part.
Petit et al (‘703) is of general interest for drawing Figure 2 and the related disclosure,
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648