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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 07/23/2024, 01/22/2025, and 03/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18780522 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitations of the copending application no.18780522 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations. They are both containing same structure includes controller couple to a bicycle wheel configured to do the same function.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. While the pending claim uses different vernacular than the copending application no. 18780522, e.g., the pending claim 1 is similar to the copending claim 1. However, the pending recites “the detector has, at an end in the detection direction, a detection surface for performing the detection, and the flange projects, above the detector, further toward the side in the counter-detection direction than the detection surface.” One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claim is directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its function is generally held to be within the skill of the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claim 1 of pending application has the same structures and capable perform the same function as claim 1 of copending application 18780522.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 13, it is suggested that the limitation recites “a side in the counter-detection direction” should be changed to --the side in the counter-detection direction-- to avoid antecedence basis.
In claim 1, lines 19-20, it is suggested that the limitation recites “a predetermined location of engagement” should be changed to --a predetermined location of the engagement-- to avoid antecedence basis.
In claim 4, line 5, it is suggested that the limitation recites “to be in engagement with the engagement projection” should be changed to --is in engagement with the engagement projection-- because it has to be in present.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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 claim 1, lines 11-12, the limitation recites “the detection unit includes a detector having at least a part stored in the storage recess” ais unclear and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers. It is unclear that what is at least a part stored in the storage recess? And what kind of part?
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the detector has, at an end in the detection direction, a detection surface for performing the detection” in lines 21-22. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. And how does a detection surface performing the detection?
The claim fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts for achieving the functional result recited in the claim to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the claim. It is not clearly explained in the specification as same reasons as stated above; therefore, it renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 2-5 are depending on claim 1, and are rejected the same reasons under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph.
Citation of Relevance Prior Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to disclosure:
Watanabe et al. (U.S Publication No. 20230139390 A1) discloses a vehicular lamp fitting includes: a lamp housing; an outer lens attached to the lamp housing, the outer lens including a recessed part and forming a first space between the outer lens and the lamp housing; a lamp unit disposed in the first space; a radar cover disposed while covering the recessed part, and forming a second space between the radar cover and the recessed part; a bracket disposed in the second space; a radar unit detachably fixed to the bracket; and a first fixing part fixing one end of the bracket to the outer lens; and a second fixing part fixing the other end of the bracket to the lamp housing.
Yokoyama et al. (U.S Publication No. 20230134497 A1) discloses vehicular lamp fitting and the like in which a radar unit can be replaced without replacing the whole vehicular lamp fitting are provided. A vehicular lamp fitting includes a lamp housing, an outer lens attached to the lamp housing and forming a lamp chamber between the outer lens and the lamp housing, a lamp unit disposed in the lamp chamber, a bracket, and a radar unit detachably fixed to the bracket.
Hara et al. (U.S Patent No. 10144424 B2) discloses a sensor arrangement structure includes a vehicle framework member having a hollow cross-section, a vicinity information detection sensor and a cover. The vicinity information detection sensor is attached to the vehicle framework member. At least a portion of the vicinity information detection sensor is disposed inside the hollow cross-section of the vehicle framework member. A detection portion that detects vicinity information of a vehicle is oriented toward a vehicle outer side of the vehicle framework member. The cover is disposed to oppose the detection portion and allows transmission of a detection carrier that is detected by the detection portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAI N PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am-5:00 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, Regis 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.
/Thai Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2844 09/29/2025