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 .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 05/12/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the drawings. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the specification and the claims.
Regarding the drawings, applicant has submitted a set of nine replacement sheets contained figures 1-9.
Response to Arguments
The submission of the set of nine replacement sheets contained figures 1-9 and applicant's arguments provided in the amendment of 05/12/2026, pages 3-4, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings as set forth in the office action of 03/12/2026.
The indicated allowability of claims 1-2, 10-12 and 20 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered US Patent No. 12,535,623 to Sun et al. The examiner sincerely apologized for not make the rejection earlier. Rejections based on the newly cited Patent follow.
Drawings
The drawings contain of nine replacement sheets of figures 1-9.were received on 05/12/2026.
As a result of the changes to the drawings, the application now contains a total of nine sheets of figures 1-9 which includes nine replacements of figures 1-9 as filed on 05/12/2026, and not any sheet as previously filed. The mentioned total of nine sheets of figures 1-9 is now 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 1-2, 10-12 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,535,623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all features recited in present claims are readable from the features recited in Patent claims.
a) The features recited in present claim 1 are readable from features recited in Patent claim 1. Regarding the feature there of the optical system has an imaging spot size less than 50 µm” recited in present claim 1 on line 10, such feature is readable from the Patent claim 1 based on the similar lens structure and their arrangement in the optical system wherein the focal lengths of each lenses constituted the optical system are recited in Patent claim 1. Since the optical system of Patent claim 1 has the same lens structure and their arrangement and same focal lengths thus it is expected that the imaging spot size of the Patent claim 1 has the same dimension.
b) Regarding features recited in present claim 2, such feature are readable from features recited in Patent claim 3;
c) Regarding features recited in present claim 10, such feature are readable from features recited in Patent claim 6;
d) Regarding features recited in present claim 11, such feature are readable from features recited in Patent claim 7;
e) Regarding features recited in present claim 12, such feature are readable from features recited in Patent claim 9; and
f) Regarding features recited in present claim 20, such feature are readable from features recited in Patent claim 12.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights