DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the election and amendment filed on February 9, 2026. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1, 7, 10-13, 15-17, 23, and 45 have been amended, while claims 34-44 and 59-62 have been formally canceled.
Claims 1-33, 45-58, 63, and 64 remain pending, with claims 1, 23, 57, and 58 in independent form. Note that all pending claim are joined into one Group, based on careful consideration of Applicant’s remarks in the traversal between Groups I and II. Also, the Examiner appreciates Applicant’s corrective amendments as well as the formal cancellation of non-elected Group III and IV claims 34-44 and 59-62.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-22, 57, 63, and 64, in the reply filed on February 9, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups II and I can be joined and examined together, without undue burden upon overall examination. Applicant has also clearly listed out how they believe Groups I and II substantially overlap in claim scope on pages 19-20 of the arguments section (dated February 9, 2026). Based on Applicant’s formal cancellation of Groups III and IV, the Examiner agrees to join all pending claims 1-33, 45-58, and 63-64 into Group I. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are found persuasive and the restriction between Groups I and II as mailed on December 9, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement (between Groups I and II), applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention (note that original claims 34-44 and 59-62 are now canceled based on the amendment from February 9, 2026), the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by Applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on December 19, 2024, October 22, 2024, August 9, 2024, June 7, 2024, March 18, 2024, December 19, 2023 (two documents), and October 2, 2023, have been considered and made of record (note attached copy of forms PTO-1449).
Drawings
The original drawings (fifty-six (56) pages) were received on June 20, 2023. These drawings are acknowledged.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to carefully review the voluminous specification for any typos, awkward language, or other informalities that come to their attention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 18-20, 23-25, 27, 28, 30-33, 52-54, 57, and 58 are objected to because of the following informalities: the terms “polariser” and “polarisation” should be updated to “polarizer” and “polarization” in the proper English spelling (with a “z”). Appropriate correction is required. Further, Applicant’s cooperation is respectfully requested to carefully review the pending claims for any typos, awkward language, or other informalities that come to their attention. Correction is required.
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 1-33, 45-58, 63, and 64 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, 32, 33, and 60 of Robinson et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,282,168 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each feature found in at least independent claims 1, 23, 57, and 58 is found within the base claims 1 / 60 of Robinson, with supplementation from dependent claims 2, 7, 32, and 33. There is no patentably distinguishing feature because each element found after the “wherein” clause, for example the “lateral anamorphic component” (of claims 1 and 57) and the “transverse anamorphic component” (of claims 23 and 58) are found expressly as structural elements and formations within claims 1, 2, 7, 32, 33, and 60 of Robinson (claims 1 and 60 being in independent form). Therefore, there is no patentable distinction found currently based on these combinations (of the current independent claims 1, 23, 57, and/or 58) in view of the Robinson patent. Claims 2-22, 24-33, 45-56, and 63-64 are also rejected at least as being in dependent claim form, but also with inclusion in the Robinson patent claims 1-60. This is a non-statutory double patenting rejection.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: PTO-892 form references A and B, which are each to similar patents allowed from the same Assignee and at least one Common Inventor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights