Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 23, 2026
Application No. 18/671,329

PHOSPHOR WHEEL, LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE, AND PROJECTION IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE

Final Rejection §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 22, 2024
Priority
Jul 21, 2021 — JP 2021-120617 +1 more
Examiner
CRUZ, MAGDA
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Panasonic Holdings Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allowance Rate
758 granted / 870 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
891
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.8%
+0.8% vs TC avg
§102
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§112
13.2%
-26.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 870 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Terminal Disclaimer This application was filed on or after September 16, 2012. The party identified in the terminal disclaimer filed on 08/25/2026 is not the applicant of record. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c) must be filed and must include an application data sheet specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. To be reconsidered, the terminal disclaimer must be filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.46(c). For cases filed on/after 9/16/12, 37 CFR 1.321 specifies that the applicant can disclaim, and the terminal disclaimer must specify the extent of the applicant's ownership. A request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to change the applicant needs to be filed, which is (1) a request, signed by a 1.33(b) party, (2) a corrected ADS (37 CFR 1.76(c)) that identifies the "new" applicant in the applicant information, and is underlined since it is new, and (3) a 3.73(c) statement showing chain of title to the new applicant. Along with the § 1.46(c) request we need a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, unless they file a TD that is signed by the applicant. 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, 8-9, 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,032,277 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claim 1 reads on patented claims 1 and 3 as follow: a phosphor wheel (column 14, line 57) comprising: a first substrate having a first main surface and a second main surface (column 14, lines 58-59), the second main surface being opposite to the first main surface (column 14, lines 59-60); a phosphor ring provided on the first main surface of the first substrate (column 14, lines 62-63); a second substrate having a third main surface and a fourth main surface (column 14, lines 64-65), the fourth main surface being opposite to the third main surface (column 14, lines 65-66), the third main surface being located between the second main surface and the fourth main surface (column 14, line 66 through column 15, line 1); and a plurality of heat dissipation fins disposed at the fourth main surface side of the second substrate (column 15, lines 3-4), wherein the second main surface of the first substrate and the third main surface of the second substrate are in thermal contact with each other (column 15, lines 7-9), and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed at positions at least partially overlapping the phosphor ring when viewed from the fourth main surface side of the second substrate (column 15, lines 31-33). Claim 8 reads on patented claim 1 (column 15, lines 10-19). Claim 9 reads on patented claim 2. Claim 11 reads on patented claim 4. Claim 12 reads on patented claim 5. Claims 13 and 14 read on patented claim 6. Claim 18 reads on patented claim 12. Claim 19 reads on patented claim 13. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-7, 10 and 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable upon timely filing of terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1, Tabayashi et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0390822 A1) discloses a phosphor wheel (Figure 3, element 20) comprising: a first substrate (Figure 3, element 22) having a first main surface (Figure 3, element 22a) and a second main surface (Figure 3, element 22b), the second main surface (Figure 3, element 22b) being opposite to the first main surface 22a); a phosphor ring (Figure 3, element 23) provided on the first main surface (Figure 3, element 22a) of the first substrate (Figure 3, element 22); a second substrate (Figure 3, element 30) having a third main surface (Figure 3, element 30a) and a fourth main surface (Figure 3, element 30b), the fourth main surface (Figure 3, element 30b) being opposite to the third main surface (Figure 3, element 30a), the third main surface (Figure 3, element 30a) being located between the second main surface (Figure 3, element 22b) and the fourth main surface 30b); and a plurality of heat dissipation fins (Figure 3, element 31) disposed at the fourth main surface (Figure 3, element 30b) side of the second substrate (Figure 3, element 30). However, Tabayashi et al. and the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests a phosphor wheel comprising a second main surface of the first substrate and the third main surface of the second substrate are in thermal contact with each other, and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed at positions at least partially overlapping the phosphor ring when viewed from the fourth main surface side of the second substrate. Regarding claims 2-19, the claims are allowable based on their dependence from claim 1. Since the prior art of record, individually or in combination, does not teach a phosphor wheel comprising a second main surface of the first substrate and the third main surface of the second substrate are in thermal contact with each other, and the plurality of heat dissipation fins are disposed at positions at least partially overlapping the phosphor ring when viewed from the fourth main surface side of the second substrate, a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) may be used to overcome the rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting and put the case in condition for allowance. Any comments considered necessary by the applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The party identified in the terminal disclaimer filed on 08/25/2026 is not the applicant of record. A request to change the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46(c) must be filed and must include an application data sheet specifying the applicant in the applicant information section and comply with 37 CFR 3.71 and 3.73. To be reconsidered, the terminal disclaimer must be filed with the request under 37 CFR 1.46(c). A request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to change the applicant needs to be filed, which is (1) a request, signed by a 1.33(b) party, (2) a corrected ADS (37 CFR 1.76(c)) that identifies the "new" applicant in the applicant information, and is underlined since it is new, and (3) a 3.73(c) statement showing chain of title to the new applicant. Along with the § 1.46(c) request we need a POA that gives power to the attorney who is signing the TD, along with another copy of the TD, unless they file a TD that is signed by the applicant. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDA CRUZ whose telephone number is (571)272-2114. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:30 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, Toan Ton can be reached at 571-272-2303. 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. /MAGDA CRUZ/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2882 10/01/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 22, 2024
Application Filed
May 28, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT
Aug 25, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 05, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12769195
MULTI-FUNCTION PROJECTOR
2y 9m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12769194
PROJECTOR
2y 4m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12761541
STRIPE PROJECTION SYSTEM
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12761465
COLOR WHEEL MODULE AND PROJECTOR
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12754467
REFLECTIVE DIFFUSION DEVICE AND PROJECTION DEVICE
3y 1m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+9.6%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 870 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month