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 filed 10/24/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 11/20/2024 are approved by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,156,716. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to conceive the limitations recited by claims 1-20 of the present application, when given the information provided by the claims of USPN 11,156,716.
By way of example, the claims of USPN 11,156,716 teach claim 1 of the present application:
A laser radar (LADAR) [ taught by line 1 of claim 1 ] comprising: a laser configured to emit pulses of a beam of light at a selective wavelength [ taught by line 2 of claim 1 ]; a lens, said lens configured to collimate the beam of light emitted by said laser [ obvious in view of lines 4-5 of claim 1 because a lens was a well-known element for shaping light into a beam ]; a scanner configured to scan said beam of light along a fan of transmission light path toward a target [ implicit from lines 4-6 of claim 1 ]; a cylindrical lens, said cylindrical lens configured to re-collimate the scanned beam of light [ taught by claim 15 ]; a plurality of photo-detectors, each of said plurality of photo-detector being sensitive to said selective wavelength of light, and being configured to perform time-of-arrival measurements [ taught by lines 10-13 of claim 1 ]; wherein said plurality of photo-detectors are arranged in a one-dimensional array [ taught by line 10 of claim 1 ]; a lens [ suggested by claim 17 ]; wherein said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors is positioned at a focal point of said lens [ taught by claim 17 and lines 14-17 of claim 1 ]; wherein said lens is configured to collect said collimated laser light reflected from the target onto said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors along a fan of reception light paths [ suggested by paths along a sequential plane, as set forth by lines 15-17 of claim 1 ]; an electronic control system, said electronic control system configured to control said scanner to provide a constant integer number of pulses per scan cycle, and synchronize said scanned beam of light with a respective time-of-arrival measurement from each of said plurality of photo-detectors [ taught by lines 26-29 and 34-38 of claim 1 ]; and wherein a field of view of each individual pixel of each of said plurality of photo-detectors match a divergence angle of said scanned beam of laser [ taught by claim 2 ].
To overcome this rejection, applicant is required to either file a terminal disclaimer or point out subject matter in pending claims 1-20 not taught or obvious in view of the claims of USPN 11,156,716.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No.12,123,950. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to conceive the limitations recited by claims 1-20 of the present application, when given the information provided by the claims of USPN 12,123,950.
By way of example, the claims of USPN 12,123,950 teach claim 1 of the present application:
A laser radar (LADAR) [ taught by line 1 of claim 1 ] comprising: a laser configured to emit pulses of a beam of light at a selective wavelength [ taught by line 2 of claim 1 ]; a lens, said lens configured to collimate the beam of light emitted by said laser [ obvious in view of line 3-4 of claim 1 because a lens was a well-known element for shaping a beam ]; a scanner configured to scan said beam of light along a fan of transmission light paths toward a target [ inferred from the sequential planes set forth by lines 5-7 of claim 1 ]; a cylindrical lens, said cylindrical lens configured to re-collimate the scanned beam of light [ taught by claim 15 ]; a plurality of photo-detectors, each of said plurality of photo-detector being sensitive to said selective wavelength of light, and being configured to perform time-of-arrival measurements [ taught by lines 10-13 of claim 1 ]; wherein said plurality of photo-detectors are arranged in a one-dimensional array [ taught by line 10 of claim 1 ]; a lens; wherein said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors is positioned at a focal point of said lens [ suggested by claim 17 ]; wherein said lens is configured to collect said collimated laser light reflected from the target onto said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors along a fan of reception light paths [ taught by claim 17 and lines 14-17 of claim 1 ]; an electronic control system, said electronic control system configured to control said scanner to provide a constant integer number of pulses per scan cycle, and synchronize said scanned beam of light with a respective time-of-arrival measurement from each of said plurality of photo-detectors [ taught by lines 22-25 of claim1 and claim 12 ]; and wherein a field of view of each individual pixel of each of said plurality of photo-detectors match a divergence angle of said scanned beam of laser [ taught by claim 2 ].
To overcome this rejection, applicant is required to either file a terminal disclaimer or point out subject matter in pending claims 1-20 not taught or obvious in view of the claims of USPN 12,123,950.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,571,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to conceive the limitations recited by claims 1-20 of the present application, when given the information provided by the claims of USPN 10,517,574.
By way of example, the claims of USPN 10,571,574 teach claim 1 of the present application:
A laser radar (LADAR) [ taught by line 1 of claim 1 ] comprising: a laser configured to emit pulses of a beam of light at a selective wavelength [ taught by line 2 of claim 1 ]; a lens, said lens configured to collimate the beam of light emitted by said laser [ obvious in view of line 3-4 of claim 1 because a lens was a well-known element for shaping a beam ]; a scanner configured to scan said beam of light along a fan of transmission light paths toward a target [ taught by lines 5-7 of claim 1 ]; a cylindrical lens, said cylindrical lens configured to re-collimate the scanned beam of light [ taught by claim 18 ]; a plurality of photo-detectors, each of said plurality of photo-detector being sensitive to said selective wavelength of light, and being configured to perform time-of-arrival measurements [ taught by lines 7-9 of claim 1 ]; wherein said plurality of photo-detectors are arranged in a one-dimensional array [ taught by line 7 of claim 1 ]; a lens; wherein said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors is positioned at a focal point of said lens [ suggested by claim 21 ]; wherein said lens is configured to collect said collimated laser light reflected from the target onto said one-dimensional array of photo-detectors along a fan of reception light paths [ taught by claim 17 and lines 10-12 of claim 1 ]; an electronic control system, said electronic control system configured to control said scanner to provide a constant integer number of pulses per scan cycle, and synchronize said scanned beam of light with a respective time-of-arrival measurement from each of said plurality of photo-detectors [ taught by lines 13-16 of claim 1 and claim 14 ]; and wherein a field of view of each individual pixel of each of said plurality of photo-detectors match a divergence angle of said scanned beam of laser [ taught by claim 2 ].
To overcome this rejection, applicant is required to either file a terminal disclaimer or point out subject matter in pending claims 1-20 not taught or obvious in view of the claims of USPN 10,571,574.
Allowable Subject Matter
Upon filing of terminal disclaimers, claim 1-20 would be allowable in view of the cited prior art.
The cited prior art does not at least teach or suggest the combination of a one-dimensional array of detectors wherein an electronic control system controls a scanner to provide a constant integer number of pulses per scan cycle and synchronize scanned light with time-of-arrival measurements at the detectors; as this concept is presented in the entire context of claims 1-20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to MARK HELLNER at telephone number (571)272-6981.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/MARK HELLNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
