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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/309,502 under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15 “further comprising processing unit” should read “further comprising a processing unit”
In claim 21, “claim15” should read “claim 15”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a scanning unit configured to performing scanning” in claim 1 (Paragraph 0052).
“a control unit configured to control the scanning unit” in claim 1 (Paragraph 0029).
“a light receiving unit configured to receive light” in claim 1 (Paragraph 0038).
“a recognition unit configured to obtain the information” in claim 14 (Paragraph 0042).
“processing unit configured to identify a type” in claim 15 (Paragraph 0029).
“a measurement unit configured to measure a position” in claim 17.
“a measurement unit configured to measure at least one of a position and a speed” in claim 18 (Paragraph 0026).
“a spectroscopic unit configured to disperse light” in claim 19 (Paragraph 0026).
“a moving unit configured to move” in claim 22 (Paragraph 0019).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-17, 19 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049). English translations of Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 1, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-6), comprising:
a scanning unit (Fig. 11 #10 “light irradiation unit”) configured to perform scanning with illumination light to illuminate an object (Paragraph 0013 lines 3-8);
a control unit (Fig. 11 #170 “control unit”) configured to control the scanning unit (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-11); and
a light receiving unit (Fig. 11 #30 “visible camera”, #40 “condensing/filter unit”) configured to receive light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-7),
wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to illuminate the object based on information related to characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-16, Paragraph 0030 line 1-Paragraph 0033 line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit to prevent the illumination light from staying at one point on the surface of the object (Paragraph 0038 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 4, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the scanning unit (Fig. 11 #10) performs scanning with the illumination light in a moving direction of the object while performing scanning with the illumination light in a direction perpendicular to the moving direction (Paragraph 0015 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 5, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit based on information related to characteristics of the object so that the scanning unit illuminates the object while moving an irradiation position of the illumination light on a surface of the object (Paragraph 0038 lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on the information related to characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 7, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a plurality of objects exists in an area scannable with the illumination light (Paragraph 0017 lines 7-9), the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) determines a measurement target object based on the information related to characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0017 lines 8-9, Paragraph 0025 lines 1-6).
Regarding claim 8, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information related to characteristics of the object is a brightness of the measured object (Paragraph 017 lines 1-9, Paragraph 0037 lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 9, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) changes an illumination time of the object based on the brightness of the object (Paragraph 0032 line 1-Paragraph 0032 line 2).
Regarding claim 10, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the scanning unit illuminates a first object having a first brightness (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-4, “adhesion range of the deposit can not be specified”) and a second object having a second brightness higher than the first brightness (Paragraph 0031 lines 1-3, “adhesion range of the deposit can be specified”) while performing scanning with the illumination light (Paragraph 0030 lines 1-2), the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit so that an illumination time of the first object is longer (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4, “interval between discrete irradiations may be narrowed”) than an illumination time of the second object (Paragraph 0033 lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information related to characteristics of the object is information regarding at least one of a shape and a size of the object (Paragraph 0022 lines 3-11, Paragraph 0026 lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 12, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit based on the information and on information regarding a position of the object (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-13, Paragraph 0038 lines 5-12).
Regarding claim 14, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a recognition unit (Fig. 11 #33) configured to obtain the information related to characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0014 lines 2-20).
Regarding claim 15, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising processing unit (Fig. 11 #130) configured to identify a type of the object based on measurement results by the light receiving unit (Paragraph 0025 lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 16, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the processing unit (Fig. 11 #130) identifies a type of the object (Paragraph 0025 lines 3-6) by using data previously obtained by measuring samples by the light receiving unit (Paragraph 0026 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 17, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a measurement unit (Fig. 11 #50) configured to measure a position of the object (Paragraph 0014 lines 16-18).
Regarding claim 19, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a spectroscopic unit (Fig. 11 #60) configured to disperse light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0014 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 23, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving unit (Fig. 11 #30, 40) receives reflection light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 24, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving unit (Fig. 11 #30, 40) receives Raman scattering light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 25, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the light receiving unit (Fig. 11 #30, 40) receives scattering light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0014 lines 3-12).
Regarding claim 26, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches a sorting apparatus (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2) comprising;
the measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1); and
a sorting unit (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-3) configured to sort objects based on results measured by the measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0026 lines 3-9, classification of tire marks to “tire brand”).
Regarding claim 27, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches a measurement method (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2) comprising:
performing scanning with illumination light to illuminate an object (Paragraph 0014 lines 1-7); and
measuring light from the object illuminated by the illumination light (Paragraph 0014 lines 12-15),
wherein the scanning with the illumination light is performed to illuminate the object based on information related to characteristics of the object (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-16, Paragraph 0030 line 1-Paragraph 0033 line 2).
Regarding claim 28, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches a sorting method (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2) comprising;
identifying an object using the measurement method according to claim 27 (see claim 27); and
sorting the object based on identification results (Paragraph 0026 lines 3-9, classification of tire marks to “tire brand”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 13, 18, 22 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916).
Regarding claim 2, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit (Fig. 11 #170) controls the scanning unit based on information related to characteristics of an object (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4).
Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching a moving object.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0006 lines 6-11), wherein the control unit (Fig. 1 #108) controls the scanning unit (Fig. 1 #124) based on information related to characteristics of a moving object (Fig. 1 #111, Paragraph 0036 lines 16-38).
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the material pieces may have irregular shapes, and the distance measuring devices provides a measurement of a height and a length of each material piece passing by on the conveyor belt, and explains that the measurement may be utilized to determine when to activate and deactivate the acquisition of detected fluorescence by a sensor system (Paragraph 0036 lines 5-38). Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the objects may be deposited on a conveyor system, and the system is capable of simultaneously tracking, classifying, and sorting a plurality of such objects (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include a moving object as taught by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) in order to simultaneously track, classify and sort a plurality of objects moving through a system.
Regarding claim 13, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching the measurement apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the information related to characteristics of the object is information regarding at least one of a conveying direction and a conveying speed of the moving object.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0006 lines 6-11), wherein the information related to characteristics of the object is information regarding at least one of a conveying direction and a conveying speed of the moving object (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-16).
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that a position detector may provide information corresponding to the movement (e.g. speed) of the conveyor belt such that the various components of the system can be activated/deactivated as each material piece passes within their vicinity and the control system is able to track the location of each of the material pieces while they travel along the conveyor belt (Paragraph 0028 lines 1-16). Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the distance measuring device provides a measurement of a height and a length of each material piece passing by on the conveyor belt, and explains that the measurement may be utilized to determine when to activate and deactivate the acquisition of detected fluorescence by a sensor system (Paragraph 0036 lines 5-38). Finally, Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the objects may be deposited on a conveyor system, and the system is capable of simultaneously tracking, classifying, and sorting a plurality of such objects (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include wherein the information related to characteristics of the object is information regarding at least one of a conveying direction and a conveying speed of the moving object as taught by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) in order to simultaneously track, classify and sort a plurality of objects and in order to activate and deactivate the various components as each object passes within their vicinity.
Regarding claim 18, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches the measurement apparatus according to claim 2, further comprising a measurement unit (Fig. 11 #50) configured to measure at least one of a position and a speed of the object (Paragraph 0014 lines 16-18).
As stated previously, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching the moving object.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0006 lines 6-11) comprising a moving object (Fig. 1 #111, Paragraph 0036 lines 16-38).
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the material pieces may have irregular shapes, and the distance measuring devices provides a measurement of a height and a length of each material piece passing by on the conveyor belt, and explains that the measurement may be utilized to determine when to activate and deactivate the acquisition of detected fluorescence by a sensor system (Paragraph 0036 lines 5-38). Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the objects may be deposited on a conveyor system, and the system is capable of simultaneously tracking, classifying, and sorting a plurality of such objects (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include a moving object as taught by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) in order to simultaneously track, classify and sort a plurality of objects moving through a system.
Regarding claim 22, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a moving unit configured to move the object.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0006 lines 6-11) further comprising a moving unit (Fig. 1 #103) configured to move the object (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-14).
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that the objects may be deposited on a conveyor system, and the system is capable of simultaneously tracking, classifying, and sorting a plurality of such objects (Paragraph 0026 lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include a moving unit configured to move the object as taught by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) in order to simultaneously track, classify and sort a plurality of objects moving through a system.
Regarding claim 29, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) teaches a manufacturing method (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2) comprising;
sorting an object using the sorting apparatus according to claim 26 (see claim 26).
Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching manufacturing a product by processing the sorted object.
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) teaches a method (Paragraph 0003 lines 1-3, Paragraph 0006 lines 6-11) comprising: sorting an object using the sorting apparatus (Paragraph 0022 lines 1-12); and manufacturing a product by processing the sorted object (Paragraph 0006 lines 1-3).
Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) explains that recycling is the process of collecting and processing materials that would otherwise be thrown away as trash and turning them into new products, therefore reducing the amount of waste sent to incinerators, conserving natural resources, preventing pollution, and saving energy (Paragraph 0005 lines 1-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include manufacturing a product by processing the sorted object as taught by Kumar et al. (US 2021/0346916) in order to recycle sorted materials which would otherwise be thrown away as trash, therefore preventing pollution and saving energy.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) in view of Yan et al. (CN 107505285). English translations of Yan et al. (CN 107505285) have been provided herein.
Regarding claim 20, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching the measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the scanning unit is a galvano scanner.
Yan et al. (CN 107505285) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-2, Paragraph 0006 lines 1-3), wherein the scanning unit (Paragraph 0024 lines 1-9) is a galvano scanner (Paragraph 0004 lines 7-9, Paragraph 0025 lines 1-3).
Yan et al. (CN 107505285) explains that the scanning imaging spectrometer utilizes a multi-faceted scanning mirror to scan and acquire material spectral data, wherein the spectral analysis equipment adopts a rapid infrared spectrometer with orthogonal CT micro-structure, which can not only improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the detection signal and the compactness of the device structure, but also satisfy the rapid and high-resolution sorting (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include wherein the scanning unit is a galvano scanner as taught by Yan et al. (CN 107505285) in order to provide a scanning unit which satisfies rapid and high-resolution sorting.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) in view of Hamada et al. (US 2020/0141865).
Regarding claim 21, Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) lacks teaching the measurement apparatus according to claim l5, wherein the object is a resin, and the processing unit identifies a type of the resin.
Hamada et al. (US 2020/0141865) teaches a measurement apparatus (Paragraph 0001 lines 1-4), wherein the object is a resin (Paragraph 0032 lines 1-4), and the processing unit (Fig. 1 #10) identifies a type of the resin (Paragraph 0049 lines 1-6).
Hamada et al. (US 2020/0141865) explains that the processor calculates and acquires spectrum intensity of the reflection or absorption spectrum of the object to be sorted on the bases of reflected light from the light receiver (Paragraph 0051 lines 1-5), and explains that acquired data references reference data to determine the resin type, wherein the reference data represents the relationship between the reflection or absorption spectrum and the spectrum intensity using samples of resin types (Paragraph 0053 lines 1-16). Hamada et al. (US 2020/0141865) states that it is possible to highly accurately determine a resin type of a transparent resin by using the disclosed resin determination method and apparatus (Paragraph 0081 lines 1-4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nishizawa et al. (JP 2015225049) to include wherein the object is a resin, and the processing unit identifies a type of the resin as taught by Hamada et al. (US 2020/0141865) in order to accurately determine resin types on the basis of a reflection or absorption spectrum.
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 1-2, 5-6 and 19 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,663. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-2, 5-6 and 19 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,663.
Application 18/908,471
U.S. Patent No. 12,138,663
1. A measurement apparatus, comprising:
a scanning unit configured to perform scanning with illumination light to illuminate an object;
a control unit configured to control the scanning unit; and
a light receiving unit configured to receive light from the object illuminated by the illumination light,
wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to illuminate the object based on information related to characteristics of the object
1. “A measurement apparatus comprising:
a scanning unit configured to move illumination light to illuminate an object configured to move;
a control unit configured to control the scanning unit; and
a sensor configured to measure reflection light from the illuminated object,
wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit so that the illumination light from the scanning unit to illuminate the object tracks the moving object”
4. “The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on information about the object.”
2. The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit based on information related to characteristics of a moving object.
1. “wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit so that the illumination light from the scanning unit to illuminate the object tracks the moving object”
4. “The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on information about the object.”
5. The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit based on information related to characteristics of the object so that the scanning unit illuminates the object while moving an irradiation position of the illumination light on a surface of the object.
1. “wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit so that the illumination light from the scanning unit to illuminate the object tracks the moving object”
4. “The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on information about the object.”
6. The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on the information related to characteristics of the object.
4. “The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the scanning unit to change a scanning condition of the illumination light based on information about the object.”
19. The measurement apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a spectroscopic unit configured to disperse light from the object illuminated by the illumination light.
1. “wherein the sensor includes a spectroscopic unit configured to disperse scattering light from the object illuminated by the illumination light”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3653