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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of preliminary amendment filed on 04/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claim 1 has been canceled. Claims 2-21 are newly added. Thus, claims 2-21 are pending in the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 ,8, 12 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3 and claim 12, line 5, it is suggested that the limitation recites “a visual indicator mounted in the housing” should be changed to --a visual indicator mounted in an opening in the housing, wherein the visual indicator may be a light pipe penetrating the housing to conduct light from a light emitting diode (LED) within the housing to an exterior of the housing-- to make it clearer and associate with the drawing.
In claims 8 and 17, line 2, it is suggested that the limitation recites “one or more LEDs” should be changed to --one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs)-- to make it clearer.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12181136 B2 and claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11747000 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the differences between the two sets of claims are only minor structural variations that are not seen to involve an inventive step when the abilities of person of ordinary skill are taken into consideration. The claim limitations of the U.S Patent No. 12181136 B2 and the U.S. Patent No. 11747000 B2 clearly anticipated the claim limitations of the pending application. They are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function.
Regarding claims 2-21, the limitations of the applicant’s claims are obvious variations of the mapped claims above. The pending claims 2 and 16 use different vernacular than the patented claims 1 and 11 of U.S Patent No. 12181136 B2 and the patented claims 1 and 11 of U.S Patent No. 11747000 B2. For example, the patented claim 11 of U.S Patent No. 12181136 B2 is an apparatus claim which recites “the controller comprising a visual indicator to distinguish the front of the housing from the rear of the housing” and the patented claim 11 U.S Patent No. 11747000 B2 is a method claim which recites “the controller comprising a visual indicator to distinguish the front of the housing from a rear of the housing,” while the pending claims 1 and 12 recites “a visual indicator mounted in the housing.” One of ordinary skilled in the art would recognize that the claims are directed to substantially the same invention, and their structures are the same. The principle differences are that the pending claims are broader in scope than the patented claims. It is generally understood that anticipation is the epitome of obviousness. Alternatively, the elimination of an element and its structure is generally held to be within the skill of the art. They both are containing the same essential limitations, and they are both capable performed the same function. Therefore, it would have been obvious that the claims 2-21 of pending application contains the same structures and capable perform the same function as claims 1-15 of U.S Patent No. 12181136 B2 and claims 1-15 of U.S Patent No. 11747000 B2.
Citation of Relevance Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smith et al. (U.S Patent No. 8201974 B1) discloses pan-tilt spotlight is a sealed, remote controlled unit which allows continuous 360.degree. rotation (pan) of visible or infrared (IR) light sources as well as vertical (tilt) aiming of the light sources 65.degree. above horizontal and 25.degree. below horizontal. The light sources are solid state (LEDs) which are energy efficient and extremely durable in the field, requiring little maintenance. Light shields are employed to control stray light, thereby enhancing the stealth of the spotlight in covert operations. The rotating parts of the spotlight are supported at several locations spaced from the axis of rotation in a manner that re-directs forces that would otherwise be carried by the shaft.
Parazynski et al. (U.S Publication No. 20190041891 A1) discloses control systems and more particularly to a controller that provides a user with the ability to send command signals for up to six independent degrees of freedom, substantially limiting cross-coupling, using a controller that is operable with a single hand; wherein data or feedback may be received on the controller 102 (e.g., an indicator such as an LED may be illuminated green to indicate the controller 102 is on).
Ogawa et al. (U.S Publication No. 20130105430 A1) discloses a manipulation apparatus that directs an operation of a drive device utilized in the movement of an object by changing a turning amount or reference direction of relative turning between a first housing and a second housing, wherein the first housing and second housing are in close proximity to each other along the turning axis of the relative turning, and each comprise an outer peripheral face having substantially the same diameter around the turning axis of the relative turning or having a substantially circular cross section perpendicular to the turning axis of the relative turning at this proximal position or nearby, and an indicator for indicating, in a mode that is visible by an operator, information related to the turning amount or turning direction of the relative turning is provided to each of the outer peripheral faces of the first housing and the second housing.
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, Alexander Taningco can be reached at (571) 272-8048. 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 03/20/2026